Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE UNION AND TRADE DISPUTES

10.5 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal the Trade Disputes Act 1965; to amend the law concerning trade unions, and to confer better protection against threats and other abuses in the course of trade disputes.
It is just over two years since the Trade Disputes Bill was introduced in this House. Its purpose was simply to override the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Rookes v. Barnard, which was that a man whose employer was induced to dismiss him by the threat of a strike in breach of contract could claim damages from the person who made the threat. The 1965 Act, in effect, says that that man will have no remedy.
In the case of Rookes v. Barnard, the British Overseas Airways Corporation was induced to dismiss Mr. Rookes from employment at London Airport by a threat from union officials that there would be an immediate strike unless Mr. Rookes were dismissed because he was not a member of the union. It was, therefore, a dispute about what is called "the closed shop".
The implications of that decision and, therefore, the scope of the Act which I seek to repeal, were narrow, and likely to relate, in practice, only to attempts to secure complete union membership by threats. That being so, it is interesting and highly relevant to consider why the 1965 Act was passed.
The Minister of Labour, who was in charge of the Bill, said:
I have opposed the closed shop throughout the whole of my trade union career … for the … reason that it means too great a concentration of power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1965; Vol. 706, c. 1020.]

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the danger of its causing unnecessary hardship to individuals, and of the real problem of
The area of collusion between very big industrialists and very big trade unions …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 1261.]
Nevertheless, he thought that the Bill should be passed so as to give certainty to this part of trade union law until the Report of the Royal Commission, and to create a more harmonious atmosphere with the trade unions.
I opposed that Bill, as did my hon. and right hon. Friends, upon the ground that such an operation, while it might be justifiable or neutral in the abstract, was not a legitimate exercise when it was being conducted at the expense of wronged individuals, who might suffer grave detriment and loss in the intervening period. Since then, we have seen widening circles of detriment and loss. Those affected are remedyless—and remedyless by Act of Parliament. It is to bring alleviation to them that I now seek to repeal the 1965 Act and otherwise to amend the law.
The union involved in the Rookes v. Barnard case was the Draughtsmen's and Allied Technicians Association. It is perhaps an understatement to describe it as a very militant union. It was surely to be expected that when the last threads of protection were ripped off the individual by the 1965 Act D.A.T.A.'s coercive activities would develop in a crescendo of confidence and aggression. That is exactly what has happened.
In March, the firm of Hebron and Medlock, in Bath, had to tell 350 employees that it must dismiss them unless they joined D.A.T.A. Mr. Medlock, of the firm, said:
I have done everything possible to resist this. We are co-operating with D.A.T.A. under duress … The divisional D.A.T.A. organiser wrote saying there would be no more contracts for us with Rolls-Royce until a closed shop agreement was signed with the union. I took legal advice and was informed we had no redress in law, and that the unions were virtually untouchable.
The firm's statement to the men, after saying that the management had resisted the proposals of the union, goes on to say:
However, events over the past 12 months have changed the situation. The union now has a number of signed agreements with major


engineering companies, including English Electric and Rolls-Royce, under which they will only use contract firms approved by D.A.T.A.
Neither D.A.T.A. nor Rolls-Royce denies this, but seeks to justify it. No denial has come from English Electric.
It is not for me to say what the Minister of Labour had in mind when he used those words on 18th May, 1965, during the passage of the Trade Disputes Act to which I have referred, and which I now repeat in full:
I am concerned about the present position, but I am far more concerned about the future. The area of collusion between very big industrialists and very big trade unions … will be a real problem in considering where power lies in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 1261.]
I merely say, speaking for myself, that I believe that I see now an area of collusion which threatens freedom in an unacceptable degree, which violates the spirit of our constitutional arrangements and which makes a wry mockery of the rule of law.
This situation has developed during the 18 months since Royal Assent was given to the 1965 Act. Therefore, I ask that Parliament should now urgently at the very least reconsider the question whether this situation can go on drifting until, some day, action may be taken on some future report of a Royal Commission.
The Bill which I seek to introduce would propose amendments of the law going beyond the repeal of the 1965 Act. That Act speaks only of threats to break contracts, but the effect of passing it has been to throw a cloak of respectability over a wide variety of threats. The

present development is a refinement of older techniques. D.A.T.A. threatens Rolls-Royce and English Electric that it will inflict some loss on them by industrial action if they give work to firms which D.A.T.A. blacklists.
Those firms are then told that they will go, or stay, on the D.A.T.A. blacklist unless they do what D.A.T.A. demands. Usually, that is that they shall not use self-employed draughtsmen nor employ draughtsmen who are not D.A.T.A. members. In all this there is not necessarily any threat to break a contract, because the right periods of notice may be given.
Accordingly, I should propose some amendments that would restrict generally the use of threats and, in particular, withdraw protection from threats when used to coerce people into union membership. In that way the law would come in to fill the gap left by the ignoble and spineless surrender of great companies like Rolls-Royce and English Electric, which have put their great names and their business custom at the disposal of militant union officials. I hope that their shareholders will find a way of giving a sharper edge to the contempt that is publicly felt for their rô1e in this business and that, for our part, the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill and submit it to the consideration of Parliament.

Question put:—

Mr. SPEAKER'S opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the proceedings stood deferred pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings))

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH SETTLEMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS MAY BE MADE.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: On Second Reading, several of my hon. Friends and myself drew attention to the need for adequate statistics if the Secretary of State was to be able efficiently to exercise the powers for which he is asking under the Clause. I drew attention to the acknowledgment by the Overseas Migration Board that the sample survey had represented a considerable improvement on the statistics hitherto available, but I also drew attention to the Board's view that nothing short of a complete count of migrants would provide fully satisfactory statistics and its anxiety that the position should be reviewed at the end of this year or next year.
During the Committee stage of the comparable Bill five years ago, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was extremely eloquent on the matter. He moved an Amendment, which was pressed to a Division, calling for the fullest statistics so that the Overseas Migration Board could best do its work.
I do not intend to do that today, because the Board has acknowledged a useful contribution having been made by the sample survey. I should, however, like the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs to give a clear undertaking that the re-examination of the position for which the Board has asked will take place in the fairly near future, either this year or next, and that if it is then found necessary, and if the Overseas Migration Board should desire it, there will then be introduced some means of producing fuller statistics to enable the Secretary of State the better to administer the money for which he is asking us under the Clause.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give that undertaking.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) for the manner in which he has approached this question. I assure him that we are anxious to obtain the maximum advantage from statistics and that the Commonwealth Office will look with the utmost sympathy on what he has said.
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance about what statistics will be produced, but I can assure him that we are with him in his desire to have the statistics made available and that we will press for the recommendation of the Overseas Migration Board to be fulfilled. This would be very useful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

10.20 a.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has been warmly welcomed by both sides of the House. There is a great tradition in this Mother of Parliaments of encouraging migration to the Commonwealth. I come from what I call a Commonwealth family. My mother's three brothers migrated to Commonwealth Africa and raised their families there. The families are still there. Her two sisters migrated to Canada and raised their families there. Scores of friends of mine are in Australia.
The House and the country have indefinable links with the British Commonwealth, and I believe that the world would be a weaker place without the Commonwealth. The continuous renewal of the human links which bind us to the Commonwealth is essential. On this both sides of the House are agreed. I take great pleasure, therefore, in moving the Third Reading of the Bill, which has the blessing of all right hon. and hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[5 th April]

Resolution reported,

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOAD LINES)

That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of fees required to be so paid by virtue of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to load lines and related matters.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOAD LINES) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(LOAD LINE RULES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.21 a.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: In this Clause, which sets out in some detail what the load line rules are to be there appear the words
shall have regard in particular to the Convention of 1966".
As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to record fairly precisely under regulations the exact terms of the International Convention of a year ago, and I am puzzled, therefore, about the drafting of subsection (1). I hope that the intention is not to depart from the rules which were carefully worked out for the Convention. This does not appear to be covered completely by the phrase "having regard in particular".

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): The intention is to adhere strictly to the rules suggested in the Convention. The expression "having regard to" will cover one or two other points which may not be covered by the Convention.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24.—(DECK CARGO.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: This Clause is of some importance because of the increasing adoption of containers. We have recently learned that the first specifically container ships are being built. Such ships will carry quite a lot of cargo on deck. This is a fairly recent development which may not have been fully foreseen in the Convention.
Will the Board of Trade take fully into account the new requirements and do nothing to hamper the loading of containers, some of which must travel as deck cargo?

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Yes. The development of deck cargo is extremely important in merchant shipping, and the purpose of the Clause is to widen our powers over deck cargo. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it used to be only timber, and it applies now to all cargoes, including containers. Every consideration will be given, in the framing of regulations, to ensure that nothing is done to hamper the development of container cargoes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25.—(INCREASE OF PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH PASSENGER STEAMERS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I had intended to move an Amendment here, but the point can be dealt with just as readily on this Question. It is fairly easy to see what is aimed at in the Clause. On Second Reading, the Minister explained that it was to try to meet the very sad cases of loss of life, recent examples of which have been the "Darlwyne", the "Prince of Wales" and the "Quesada", and to prevent overloading by more severe penalties. Nevertheless, it is surprising to find in subsection (2) that we are including three classes of vessel which are excluded from the rest of the Bill. The Minister will not be surprised that this point is raised. It is somewhat perplexing, although I have no doubt that he will say that it is a drafting matter.
We are including here the various classes of ship excluded under Clause 1, that is, ships of war, ships solely engaged in fishing, and pleasure yachts. One can understand that there may be cases, though probably not very many, of pleasure yachts taking paying passengers, which would, therefore, attract the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1894, 1906 and 1949, which already provide for regulations and prescribe penalties. The effect of this Clause would be to increase the penalties, and, in view of the tragedies which have taken place, it would be difficult to object to that. I understand that the Royal Yachting Association raises no objection.
It is a little harder to understand the inclusion of fishing vessels, though one can understand that there may be cases of fishing vessels taking paying passengers and thereby attracting the effect of the relevant Acts in respect of what are termed passenger steamers.
It is, however, difficult to understand what the Government have in mind in their inclusion of warships. I did not know that warships ever took paying passengers. Perhaps we may be given one or two instances. We are wondering what is happening to the Fleet and how it is being employed, but we never envisaged that it was setting up a new service of pleasure craft which could be covered by this Bill, and, even if it were, one cannot understand why the Government should subject themselves to this kind of regulation covering the overloading of warships used as pleasure craft.
Was it necessary to draft the Clause in this way? I cannot believe that there will be cases to be covered. If it is simply a question of drafting, it is a pity that it could not be done in a more tidy way.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. Precisely the same thing occurred to me. But this is, as he said, purely a drafting provision. There is, of course, no intention to bring warships within the ambit of the Bill. I understand that, despite the existence of Clause 25(2), warships are still not covered because of the provisions of the 1894 Act.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this seems to be an extremely

clumsy way of drafting and, if he agrees, we can look at it again to see whether it can be put more specifically. We want to cover pleasure yachts, of course, and as far as fishing vessels are concerned, this is just an additional provision. It is most unlikely that fishing vessels will be used for fee-paying pleasure purposes but it might conceivably happen. Hence the value of this provision in covering them. But with warships such a thing could never happen and they are in fact excluded. I agree that we should look at the drafting again, however.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

10.30 a.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
A great deal of work has been done on this Bill by officials and by our own industry and by officials and industries of other countries and I know that the House would like me to express our thanks for all that work. I would also express my personal thanks to the House and to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), for the speed with which we have been able to get this Bill through the House.
I would only add that I very much hope that the special provisions of Clause 25, which greatly increase penalties, will be widely publicised and will act as a deterrent in preventing a repetition of the disasters to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

10.32 a.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I need not add much to what the Minister of State has said. As I said on Second Reading, on both sides of the House we would like to see this Bill come into force at the earliest possible moment. We realise that a year has to run from the time when a specific number of States have ratified and perhaps the Minister can tell us whether, following the introduction of the Bill, more States have agreed to the


Convention so that the year involved may start to run at an early date and our merchant shipping be able to take advantage of the Bill, which will have the same effect as if our fleet were slightly increased owing to the increased loads that it will be possible to carry under the new rules.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: There is no further news yet, except of intentions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

Orders of the Day — SHIPPING (RIVER TYNE)

10.34 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I welcome the fact that we are to have a reasonable amount of time to discuss the very important issue of the future of the River Tyne. I hope that for a moment it might be possible to secure the attention not only of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport but also of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as some of these matters are almost indistinguishable in the way the responsibility for them falls between the Ministry of Transport and the Board of Trade.
I first wish to emphasise how sincerely and how deeply the anxiety is felt amongst all of us who live on Tyneside and, indeed, much more widely. This extends far beyond those whose work is directly affected to very many people who fear that their forms of employment may be indirectly affected by this whole question of how the trade of the River Tyne is likely to develop in the immediate and in the longer-term future.
Of course, the major trade of the Tyne—on which, indeed, its commerce was built up—was that of coal carrying and we recognise the inevitability of the decline of that trade both for export and, to some extent, coastwise. One cannot envisage very much change in that pros-

pect, but it is of the utmost concern to all of us that this declining trade should be replaced by increased trade in other goods.
I will illustrate the amount of anxiety there is on Tyneside. Not only has the Chamber of Commerce taken a very active part in expressing the concern so widely felt in industry and commerce along the river and elsewhere, but on the trade union side anxieties are also being expressed. Only a few days ago, a major meeting of the South Shields Trades Council was held and these anxieties were expressed. Demand was made for a special conference on the subject and that desire was supported by the North-East Federation of Trades Councils as recently as last Saturday. There is no doubt that the feeling is growing throughout Tyneside that action is urgently needed.
I want first to refer to a particular topic which affects the Board of Trade, although it is a little hard to understand why it should not also be the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport. This is the position of coastal shipping. While my hon. Friend the Minister of State is still present, I want to say how anxious we are about the future of coastal trade. At a time when we are all concerned to see that the best possible use is made of transport facilities, some of us feel that the contribution that coastal shipping might make is being left out of the picture. We are certainly not particularly encouraged by the knowledge that, when various regional transport bodies are being established, we do not really see the inclusion of representatives of coastal shipping. There may be many reasons for that but there is no doubt in the minds of most of us that coastal shipping has made a big contribution to the movement of certain types of cargo and we fear that, unless some specific action is taken, its decline may become quite rapid and the potential of coastal shipping utterly lost.
Indeed, many of those responsible for this form of transport complain that they are put in an unfair position in competing with shipping firms on the Continent which are able to come over and, as some people feel, take unfairly some of our trade without similar reciprocal facilities being available to our coastal shipping firms.
Are any steps being taken to encourage the development of fresh ideas about the form that the coastal shipping trade might take in future so that it can efficiently fill its proper rôle and thereby help to limit the amount of traffic which might otherwise have to be carried by road or rail? I hope that we shall be assured that those responsible, both at the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport, accept that coastwise shipping has a proper and efficient rôle still to play, and that they would welcome new proposals from the industry. The question of coastwise shipping particularly concerns us on the Tyne because a high proportion of our trade, particularly in coal, now goes coastwise from the Tyne. Coastwise shipping is an integral and vital part of the whole picture when we are discussing the river's future.
I hope that this debate—I was going to say short debate, but it need not be all that short—will enable the Minister to give certain assurances and put right certain misconceptions which have arisen because of the publication of the major reports on the future of ports and harbours in Great Britain. There was the Rochdale Report, and since then we have had the Interim Report of the National Ports Council. Both those bodies made clear that in their view the major immediate development requiring emergency consideration was that which was to take place on the Tees. I do not wish to attack that recommendation; there are clear economic reasons why important developments should take place on the Tees, and none of us would wish to gainsay them.
Unfortunately, the idea seems to have got about that that precludes the Tyne from putting forward major proposals for development, and even for more modest proposals that might well fit into the broader picture of port developments in the whole of the North-East. It would be very valuable if we could establish from this debate that the main recommendations from the National Port Council in no way ruled out the importance of developments still taking place on the Tyne. When he was on the Tyne only last Wednesday, Lord Rochdale said as much. When questioned on that very issue, he said that he had to make it clear that the proposals for which he had been largely responsible did not mean, and

were not intended to mean, a sterilisation of the Tyne. He said that it was largely the responsibility of the area to put up practical proposals for development.
I have no quarrel with that, although I think that there are certain ways in which valuable assistance and information can be given from Government sources and elsewhere. But if we can get it clear that there is no block on schemes for development and improvement that we regard as vital for the Tyne, that will at least make some contribution to getting rid of what I believe to be a major misconception that has damaged relationships on the Tyne in the last year and a half.
The Tyne is still a major port, although there has been a severe decline, which is still continuing, in its major and historic trade in coal. The history of that trade goes back a very long way. Queen Elizabeth I made regulations trying to limit and stop the coastwise export of sea coal from the Tyne to London because of the smoke and smell that was caused there.
None of us really complains that that trade is inevitably declining. But the Tyne has not only been concerned with the export of coal, which, even after its recent decline, remains a major factor in the river's trade. It has also had other considerable trade. It is naturally the great import centre for grain and provisions of all kinds because of the large population that can easily be served from it. There is the largest concentration of population in the North-East around the Tyne, and there are also extremely efficient road and rail services for distribution. The road services are steadily improving even further, and there is no doubt that when the immediate programme is completed there will hardly be a river and area better served by road communications.
Naturally, that type of consumer trade for the River Tyne is likely to continue, and we hope that it will expand. New quay facilities have been provided by the Newcastle authority, and other facilities have been developing at the mouth of the Tyne. There are also very valuable developments concerning many other types of cargo, including facilities for packaged timber. Trade union disputes have unfortunately caused some difficulty in the past and we all hope that they are in course of settlement. There


is no doubt of the desire on the river to make good, modern facilities available for all forms of trade that can suitably be dealt with on the Tyne.
The Tyne is well placed for communications to Scandivania, and passenger services have recently been developed, in addition to the long-standing passenger services available to Oslo and Bergen which many of us have used many times in the past. It is very encouraging that new roll-on roll-off berths have been constructed in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). They will prove extremely valuable. We also hear discussion about possible further developments on that side of the river for other cargo. I do not think that that need be the last of the development for passenger services. It should be possible for valuable passenger services to be established to Sweden as well as to Norway from the area, which is very suitably placed for that kind of traffic.
I now turn to one of the main cargoes at present coming into the Tyne, and about which there has been some discussion, namely, iron ore. This has grown to be the largest single bulk cargo coming into the river and at Tyne Dock, in my constituency, we have one of the most efficient discharging quays for iron ore in the country, if not the most efficient.
These are facilities not available anywhere else in the North-East. There is direct rail communication to the Consett Iron Works.
The point that I want to make to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope that he will put it to other Ministers who may be responsible, is that we regard the continuance and development of this traffic as absolutely vital to the future of the River Tyne, and to much else that goes on near the river. This matter is complicated by the fact that the extent of the development at Consett, the size of production to be encouraged, is a matter for discussion and decision.
At the moment the needs of Consett are being met by services already available at Tyne Dock for the import of ore. But if, as we all hope and expect, the Consett Works are to develop—and I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David

Watkins) is here—and if the demand is to tripling as we wish it to, this will mean a tripling of the import of ore into Tyne Dock, and will almost certainly mean that provision would have to be made for larger bulk-carrying ore ships. There are very few of those large ships which cannot be taken at Tyne Dock, but there are some rising to 60,000 and 65,000 tons, which could not be accommodated there or in the Tees at present.
This would involve the deepening of the river channel in the harbour mouth of the Tyne up to Tyne Dock, which is very close to the harbour mouth. The important point is that if the deepening of the river to take the larger ore carriers is to take place and the new dock facilities are to be provided, this will cost £3 million, of which I understand the deepening of the harbour mouth will account for £500,000. Geological surveys have been made to prove the feasibility of this work, and to show that it would neither be a particularly difficult job nor would it involve very heavy maintenance costs. It has been shown that the cost of continuing dredging to maintain the deeper channel would not be very high.
I stress this because it is true, as my hon. Friend has made clear in correspondence with me, that the proposal for the deepening of the channel and the provision of these new facilities at Tyne Dock is linked with the potential development of Consett and with the decision whether to take iron ore through the Tyne or to concentrate it and take it through the Tees. This latter would be a much longer and more expensive haul, and this is a crucial point. This project is a major one demanding development on the Tyne but it is by no means the only one.
I should like to point out that it has some relative urgency in the sense that at present the cranes on the existing quay and the jetty for the discharge of ore will need to be replaced within a relatively short period of time—about two to three years. It is vital that, when these cranes are replaced, we shall know what size of traffic we are to take. We want to ensure that the cranes shall be replaced by the most modern available, which frankly, could not go on the existing quay.
They would have to be part of a larger scheme of development of the kind that I have already mentioned, provision


for which is already included in the figure of £3 million. Before long we shall be coming to decisions which are inevitably linked with these wider questions of the total cargoes which are to be taken into the river. I am making the most urgent plea to my hon. Friend to ensure that these decisions are taken quickly, enabling this first stage of development to take place. It is a relatively modest development in comparison with the kind of capital costs, which in any case will be undertaken on the Tees. In my view those on the Tyne will be of great value, not only for the iron ore cargoes but for many other purposes.
We have been faced in recent years with the rather absurd position of having to lay out to sea large numbers of ships which could not be brought into the river loaded, except at high tide. I would have thought, and this is very much the view of those with whom I have discussed this matter, including the river pilots, that it ought to be possible to deepen the harbour to enable these larger ships to be brought up into the harbour to the necessary quay facilities, rather than leaving them out in the open sea, at cost, and sometimes with some difficulty.
There are a number of other possibilities of development on the river. The river provides facilities for a wide range of general cargo. We have most important engineering works and other industries on the river, including some of the most famous in the world. There are firms such as Parsons, which, from time to time, exports coastwise or otherwise, some of its very large plant-transformer equipment and so on. No doubt this trade will increase.
What is more, we have three new towns within easy reach of the river. There are the two developed through the initiative of the Northumberland County Council, Killingworth and Cramlington, and on the south of the river there is Washington New Town which is just developing. It would make economic sense to examine the potentiality for traffic by sea to discover what developments may be taking place in those new towns, and the kind of traffic that they might generate.
That leads me to the important point which I wish to make. There is clearly a need for an independent economic survey of the potentiality of the River Tyne

to examine not only the kind of traffic which may develop from existing firms but the potentiality of it within the context of the North-East as a whole. This has not been done, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give every possible encouragement to it. It is essential and urgently needed and it should be started without delay. My fear, and the fear of many of us on Tyneside, is lest decisions are taken almost behind our backs which determine the issue without our having been able to make the case effectively for the potential of the river.
This is what is worrying many people on the river. They recognise that the Tyne has been under the disadvantage of having four river authorities, in effect, managing the trade of the river whereas the Tees has only one. This is to be altered. It was right that, as was made clear in the Reports to which I have referred, this should be one of the first matters to be considered by the river authority in order to get its administration right. This has now been agreed, and a new single authority is to take over next year. However, I urge that this should not be used as an excuse for holding up possible development.
We on the river are very concerned that it can be said, and indeed it has been said, that this matter should be left to the new authority. We cannot afford to leave it to the new authority. Many actions can be taken now. I have no doubt that the main existing authority, the Tyne Improvement Commission, is doing its best within its limited resources to undertake some of the work which needs to be done. But I urge that an independent economic study is vital for our future. We should be taking some of the initial steps now, particularly concerning the future of the iron ore, and moving forward to making a proper economic study and carrying out the sort of inquiry to which I referred into the future of coastal shipping.
I emphasise that we are not only concerned about the repercussions of any further rundown of traffic on the river on those who are immediately affected and naturally very anxious—for example, the pilots, tugmen, port workers and dock workers. My information is—and it is confirmed most strongly by the Chamber of Commerce and by all those in a position to know—that any further rundown


of trade on the river will most seriously affect the major concentration of ship repair for which our river is famous, and, in the longer term, shipbuilding itself.
This is a matter which affects every one of us because there are thousands of men employed in these great industries. In Britain there is no greater concentration on ship repair work than there is on the Tyne. The link between trade on the river and repair facilities is very close. Those concerned with the industry tell me that they are anxious lest any dwindling of trade results in a fall-off of orders and in unemployment. If trade were to fall further, the whole question of the dues to be paid must be considered and its effect on the industries on the river will be of the greatest concern.
I have, therefore, introduced this debate, because I am particularly anxious that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should, first, set at rest some of the anxieties which have been rather mistakenly caused by some of the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee and of the interim Committee. I hope that he will make it clear that developments on the river which can be justified are not precluded, although I realise that there must be economic justification for any proposals put forward.
Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to assure us about the possibility of getting ahead in reasonable time with deepening the channel in the harbour mouth and with new facilities for the iron ore quay linked with the developments at Consett. These matters should be studied urgently not only for their own sake but because of their link with other important work which is needed on the river. Thirdly, I hope that he will give every possible encouragement to the carrying out of an independent economic study on which we can rely which will make clear not only the vital need for development on the river but the great economic disaster which would occur, and for which no Government could escape responsibility, were the downturn in trade to affect the major industries on which the life of the river and the people who live by it depends.

11.7 a.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I should like to congratulate very warmly the hon. Member for

South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) on having initiated this debate. I congratulate him on his speech, which was excellent, and on his grasp of the problems of Tyneside as a whole.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that there is urgency in this problem. He is perfectly right in suggesting that much of the concern on the banks of the Tyne has arisen from misconceptions. There is certainly concern at this time. The Tyneside Chamber of Commerce, the Tyne Improvement Commission, and the third and fourth generations of traders on the banks of the Tyne are suggesting to Members of Parliament that something needs to be done urgently to ensure the future of this great river and port.
I am surprised that there are not more Members from Tyneside present today for this very timely debate. At the election, a year ago, the Conservative Party did not have, I think it is reasonable to suggest, its best election ever.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I have had apologies from several of my hon. Friends who were expecting that this debate would take place later in the morning.

Mr. Elliott: We know about the problems of morning sittings, but quite a lot of the victories—in fact, the majority of the victories—on Tyneside a year ago were Labour victories. I am, therefore, surprised that there are not present more of the candidates who were successful at the election and who, during the election campaign, stressed their concern about the future prosperity of the area. There were so many Labour victories that only my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) and myself now represent the Conservative Party on Tyneside. This is a temporary embarrassment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman notes that we are both here, having set out in good time last night for this debate. I will not make more of that point.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) present, because the future of Consett is of major concern to the area as a whole.
Misconceptions have arisen, first, from the Rochdale Report which, sensibly, thinking in modern terms, suggested that we had too many ports and that there should be amalgamation of ports and a


concentration of the principal ports. The first misconception in the North-East was that all future development would be on the Tees. Then we had Benson No. 1, the Report which, rather to the dismay of the area as a whole, suggested that there was not a long-term future for the great iron and steel works at Consett in County Durham.

Mr. David Watkins: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that there was no direct reference to that in the Benson Report, but the conclusion has largely been drawn from the omission of specific mention of Consett in the Report?

Mr. Elliott: Yes, I agree, but the hon. Gentleman, with his constituency concern, and all others in the region were approached—we had our own concern without being approached—on the possibility of this steel works not continuing and the enormous effect that this would have on the future of the River Tyne.
The hon. Member for South Shields rightly said our river was both famous and historical. It is indeed. All those who are associated with the City of Newcastle, the natural capital of the area, and with the constituencies round about, are proud of the river and its history, proud of what was done by those who set out to make the commerce of our area in other days as good as it became and as it has steadily become over the years. But the principal and basic trouble on our river is the loss of the coal trade.
It has often been said that, so long as the Tyne had coal, it was all right. We want the Government constantly to keep in mind—I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is with us this morning—the fantastic fall in the coal trade. Not long ago, 22 million tons of coal a year went from the Tyne. Now it is 3¾ million tons, and those of us who are closely associated with the area know that the decline will not stop there.
Coal is a great commodity for our area. The old saying that no one takes coal to Newcastle no longer applies, perhaps, now that nowhere near so much coal is going forth from the Tyne. Coal is a bulky cargo. It called for a lot of ships. How right the hon. Member

for South Shields was to stress that ships are important to our great industries on the Tyne, in repairing, and so on. It does not take nearly so many ships to carry away the goods made in the new factories which have come to replace the old. We are delighted to have with us in the North-East a company like Wilkinson making its "sword-edge" razor blades, but it would take a great many cases of razor blades to fill up the hold of the ship. Coal was a bulky cargo, and, so long as we had it, we were all right.
As I see it, the Tyne has a future. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should have an independent economic survey. Perhaps we should, but I am not altogether sure. We have had too many surveys in the past and too many suggestions that planning councils and reviews would bring automatic answers. My experience recently in talking to those who are concerned about the future of the trade of our area is that the businessman has a good idea of what is required. The natural application of economic forces brings the right conclusions, but the right conclusions, as the hon. Gentleman said, need a good deal of economic aid.
The Tyne has a great future. It has a basic industry established there which is most important to it, and we must build on it. Based on the banks of the Tyne, we have some of the finest shipbuilding facilities in the world. The concentration is considerable, as the hon. Member for South Shields pointed out. In a very short space on the north bank of the Tyne, not far from my constituency, 10,000 men are employed daily. We have magnificent yards which have equipped themselves in recent years. I am happy to know that they were greatly assisted in re-equipping and modernising themselves by successive Conservative economic policies when we were in office. The investment allowances did a great deal for the shipyards of the Tyne.
In ship-repairing, also, we have something which is basic and highly important to us. But, as the hon. Member for South Shields rightly stressed, if our trade on the Tyne is falling, if we are not having so many ships coming into the river, our great ship-repairing industry is in grave danger. I want the Minister to appreciate this. It was said


to me recently that ships are being paid the cost of their transport from other places in order to be brought to the Tyne for repair nowadays. This is the state we are coming to. We need new trade and we need new ships.
I believe that our future can be all right if we concentrate on the bulk cargoes. If we do that, there are three main bulk trades possible for us, as I see it. First and foremost, there is iron ore. I understand—perhaps the hon. Member for Consett will confirm this—that iron ore at present represents 18 per cent, of the trade of the Tyne. It is most important to us, therefore, that Consett should continue in being and that the iron ore which is its basic requirement should come in through the Tyne.
If we are to develop Tyne dock and spend a considerable amount of money on so doing—I understand that it is a perfect place to be developed for this type of cargo—why should not the iron ore for the whole region come in through the Tyne? Is not this a possibility? There have been suggestions that Consett is badly located as a steel works—we have always called it the steel works on top of a hill—but I understand from those who know better than I do about the problems of such an industry that it is not the haul to the steel works, but the possession of terminal facilities, unloading facilities at the docks, and so on, which is all-important.
Tyne dock could be developed, with the necessary dredging, to take ships of up to 100,000 tons if there would be enough business for them. Why not have iron ore coming into the Tyne not only for Consett, but for the steel works of South Durham as well?
I dwell for a moment longer on Consett because of our concern in the area for its future. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that, although there are about 7,500 people employed in the steel works, about 40,000 people are socially dependent on the industry in that town. There has been tremendous investment there and great effort on the part of the company to modernise itself. This has greatly impressed all those of us who have been to see it, and we hope that it will continue.
The second great possibility is the importation of wheat. There will be a heavy wheat requirement in the United

Kingdom over the next five to 10 years. It will be more difficult to bring wheat into our country because there is not so much available in the world as there used to be, and in the recent Farm Price Review the Minister of Agriculture has rightly encouraged an increase in home production of wheat.
Nevertheless, there will be need for heavy importation of wheat, and wheat coming into the Tyne in bulk is the second great possibility for us. I mean wheat coming into the Tyne not as it has always done, to the well-established and traditional mills there, Spillers and Ranks, but coming in in greater quantity. Our two great mills were designed to take Canadian wheat from ships on the river, but they were designed for a specific trade. We now require something far bigger than this.
Early in my membership of the House as one of the Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I was approached by Messrs. Rank and asked to assist the firm in doing something about the high cost of the dredging of the river in front of its wharf. Those of us from the area know how high up the river the Rank mill is. Indeed, the Spiller's mill on the other bank is not much further down. There is a great possibility for incorporating in the modern dock, which, we hope, will be much nearer the mouth of the river, wheat unloading facilities not only for Tyneside, but for a much larger area.
The third possibility is timber. We are given to understand that Canadian timber, in particular—Canadian lumber, to give it its correct description—is now being packaged in such a form that it can be conveyed by big bulk carriers. Here again, is a possibility for the Tyne to do something for a wider area than merely its own environment.
Surely, if facilities are made available for the unloading of those three commodities—iron ore, wheat and timber—and if we can get our river into a suitable condition to take 60,000, 70,000 and, as I am told there will be operating in the near future, 100,000-ton ships, there is a great future for the river.
We must think in terms of the lower reaches and of dredging. I do not claim technical knowledge, but those who have the requisite technical knowledge have assured me on inquiry that there is nothing


to prevent the lower reaches of the Tyne being dredged to an additional depth of 30 or 40 ft. It seems that the new trailer suction dredging would make this a practical possibility.
I like the other suggestion of the hon. Member for South Shields—because, here again, one has certain evidence of its possibility—of roll-on, roll-off transport. There is a good possibility here from the Scandinavian countries. The Port of Newcastle and the River Tyne has always been the natural port for Scandinavia, and I hope that it will long continue to be so.
Here again, there is need for capital development. Alongside the berths from which the ships have gone for many years to the Scandinavian countries, there is the possibility of the construction of modern roll-on, roll-off berths. The hinterland is available, and development linked to developing road systems could be a very practical possibility.
I therefore add my support to that of the hon. Member for South Shields in asking the Government to realise the urgency of our requirement on the Tyne. We were most encouraged by the recent visit of Lord Rochdale. I return, as I began, to the misconception of the original suggestion that there would be concentration of ports. When Lord Rochdale came to Newcastle last week, or the week before, and said that he was anxious to be given proposals from the Tyne, and that the river should have a good future, this was highly encouraging. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will add to that very real encouragement when he replies to the debate.
We are heading fast towards a single authority for the river, and I am sure that that is right, but I would like to end by paying tribute to the Tyne Improvement Commission. Over the years in which I have represented a Tyneside constituency in this House, I have found the Commission to be a lively and active body. It has been peopled by keen citizens of the area and I know that its members are highly concerned, as, indeed, are all those who know the problem, with the future of the river.

11.24 a.m.

Mr. David Watkins: My remarks must of necessity be prefaced by

an expression of regret to the House for my late arrival and for missing the opening part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) at the start of this debate. It is clear that the House has dealt with its earlier business with greater expedition than I and, I suspect, others of my hon. Friends expected.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) has rightly said, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, that the whole future and development of the River Tyne is a matter of urgency. In this I certainly support what they have said. They have drawn attention to the importance of the Consett steelworks for the future of the Tyne and, indeed, of a very large area of the North-East. The future of the Consett steelworks is very much interrelated with the future of the Tyne.
To a large extent, the future prosperity of the Tyne and Tyneside depends on the future prosperity of Consett, but it is equally true that the future of the steelworks at Consett and its possible expansion is very much tied to the necessity for improved facilities for the importation of iron ore via Tyne Dock.
Consett steelworks injects something like £20 million per annum into the economy of the North-East. It is obvious, therefore, that not only is the future of the River Tyne at stake, but that the future of a large area of the surrounding hinterland of the Tyne estuary is tied to the future development of the river.
Previous speakers have indicated that there remains doubt in some places concerning the future of the Consett steelworks, and I should like to devote my next remarks to this subject. As the House has already heard this morning, it is relevant and of importance in the matter of shipping facilities on the Tyne.
I notice that a noble Member of another place, who spoke on this matter and referred to the Report of the Benson Committee on the future of the steel industry, is reported in the Northern Echo of 30th March to have said:
It is, I believe, conveyed that the Consett Iron Company would drop out of production in seven or eight years' time".
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields will recollect that on 15th December last, following a great deal of controversy over this matter, he accompanied


me when we met my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power specifically to discuss the Benson Report and the implications which had been drawn from it concerning the future of steel production at Consett. My right hon. Friend said on that occasion—and this was made public—that there were certainly no proposals for the closure of the works.
Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, referred to this matter in the House on 23rd January and said:
There is no intention, no proposal whatever, that Consett should be closed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 1173.]
I make these points particularly to deal with what clearly remain as misgivings in some quarters about what is thought to be the possibility of a phasing out of the production of steel at Consett. It can, I think, be fairly assumed that the conclusions which have been drawn from the omission from the Benson Report of any mention of Consett, to which I referred when the hon. Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne, North allowed me to intervene, are wrong and that the future of steelmaking at Consett can reasonably be assumed to be ensured for a considerable time into the future.
When the deputation of hon. Members representing constituencies in the North-East met the Minister of Power, what we put before him clearly and what was not in dispute was that there is a considerable potential not only for the retention of that plant but for the ultimate trebling of its output. The facilities for capital investment are such that it is a distinct possibility, and the potential is there.

Dame Irene Ward: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the rather complicated point which has given rise to a number of the misgivings which have been expressed? The Minister has said and it has been emphasised on more than one occasion that the future of Consett depends on the proposals which have to be put forward by the National Steel Corporation. I think that that is where difficulty has arisen, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman can elaborate on that proposal, because it would help to clear the issue for us all.

Mr. Watkins: The issue which is at stake is not only the retention of the

steelworks, but that it is estimated that a viable modern steelworks of this type must have a productive capacity of 3 to 3½ million ingot tons per annum, the present capacity at Consett being 1·1 million tons. The building of a 3½ million ton capacity plant on a new site is calculated to involve £80 million of capital expenditure, whereas the existing facilities at Consett are such that an expansion could be achieved at an estimated capital cost of £40 million. I do not want to enter into a great deal of technical discussion on this point, but the fact remains that Consett is the most modern of the major steelworks in the country, and the only one whose production is on the oxygen process of steel-making. That means that the potential for expansion is considerable and it would be expansion at a greatly reduced capital expenditure compared with anything on another site.
The amalgamation which has taken place on Teeside, involving South Durham and other companies, does not of itself mean that there is no future for the Consett works. That was the rationalising of a type of steel production which is not carried on at Consett. Irrespective of mergers and amalgamations, Consett remains in a very strong position for the future. I am sorry if I have dealt with that at some length, but the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) rightly made the point, and I hope that I have played some further part in seeking to clear up some of the misapprehensions which have existed.
It is an established fact that Consett is not to be phased out of existence, and there is considerable potential for its expansion. There is a powerful case for improved iron ore handling facilities at Tyne Dock. It is not so practical to use the River Tees for the purpose of importing iron ore into Consett. The hon. Member for Newcastle, North touched upon this point, and he made the interesting suggestion that the Tyne might become the major importing point for iron ore for the whole north-east of England. I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of that this morning, because it is by no means a simple issue. The point which we are making here is the necessity for the improvement of the River Tyne, particularly in relation to Consett. The possibility of other steelworks importing their ore through the Tyne is a


wider issue which needs further consideration.
The Consett Steelworks is 24 miles from Tyne Dock, but it is a direct rail run and, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has himself remarked, it is one which uses the most modern rail transport facilities and the cheapest pro rata in the world for conveying iron ore by rail.
The possibility of using the Tees for importing ore to Consett is, on economic and practical grounds, a non-starter. It is not only that the rail haul is a longer one, although, if it were a direct run, the fact that it was longer would not necessarily add hugely to the cost. The import of iron ore to Consett via the Tees would involve switching between three different rail routes, and it is the switching, changing and shunting which adds considerably to the cost. The corollary of that might apply when considering the possibility of importing iron ore to the South Durham and North Yorkshire works via the Tyne. That is why I say that the matter which the hon. Member for Newcastle, North has raised is more complex than might appear at first sight. Unquestionably, on grounds of practicality and economy, Tyne Dock is the place for the importation of iron ore to Consett.
The fact remains, too, that it is necessary to consider making greater provision for larger iron ore carriers to be accommodated and discharged at Tyne Dock. It is a practical and economic proposition that such provision could be made.
The point which I have tried to make in the course of my remarks is that Consett and Tyneside are mutually dependent. I do not think that the future of either the River Tyne or steel manufacturing at Consett can be separated. The prosperity of each depends on the other and upon the improvement and expansion of facilities in the other. It is a practical and economic proposition to make provision at Tynemouth for the discharge of iron ore carriers of 65,000 tons or more. The prosperity of a large area depends on the modernisation of the Tyne and everything which is tied with it.
I repeat that this is a matter of urgency, not one about which we can await pro-

longed investigations and further reports. At the same time, if the suggestion which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has made were adopted and an independent economic survey were carried out, all the factors involved would point to a very powerful case for the future of the Tyne and for investment in its modernisation.
I wish to support my hon. Friend in everything that he has said, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give us a favourable reply.

11.40 a.m.

Dame Irene Ward: We have had a most useful discussion and I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) on having had the imagination to choose this subject for an Adjournment debate. It was extremely lucky for Tyneside and the North-East that the debate came on early because we have been given a fairly long period in which to get down to much more detail than is possible in an ordinary half-hour debate, when, so often, time precludes important detailed issues from discussion and, therefore, from inclusion on the record in HANSARD.
My hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) referred to the many promises made during the last election campaign. It is fair to say that candidates who have not previously served in the House of Commons do not always realise that the making of promises is easy but that their implementation is much more difficult. This goes for all parties, for this is not a party discussion.
Those of us who have been in the House for some time realise that we must always exert pressure on Governments because there are so many problems that, unless one pinpoints the essential needs of our areas, Governments may say, "We have had no major representations about a certain issue, so it can go to the bottom of the agenda". That is why it is so fortunate that we are able to have this debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for initiating it, for it has enabled us to put forward some of the issues facing Tyneside.
After the last election, the first suggestions on the future of the Tyne came from the Tyneside Chamber of Commerce. Very rightly, it summoned all


the local M.P.s to a meeting. I was, unfortunately, ill, so I could not be there. The meeting discussed what could be done to deal with the situation on Tyne-side. In the old days, with the concentration of coal exporting, quite apart from shipbuilding, marine engineering, and ship-repairing, we had a very lively trade on the Tyne. It takes a long time to change the trade of a river.
The other day I was listening to Questions being put to the right hon. Lady the Minister of Transport. She was being asked what the future of other ports was to be. Their future is good for the economy and I make no complaint about those Questions. But capital expenditure seems to be projected for ports all over the country and I thought to myself, when I heard the questioning, that if the Tyne does not get in soon we shall be told that finance for capital expenditure on the Tyne is not available within the coming financial year.
When I was fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair, I asked the right hon. Lady what she intended to do or authorise for Tyneside. She replied that she was awaiting proposals. Today, many practical proposals have been put forward. I appreciate that they have to be in more specific form, but I hope that the Minister now realises that the Tyne has many practical ideas. All Tyneside M.P.s want to impress upon the Government that this is a matter of urgency.
Reference has been made to the Rochdale Report and also to the future of Consett within the concept of that Report. Tyneside is in a very difficult position because our future has been "crabbed" in the last two years by the fact that the National Ports Council has plans for other areas whereas Tyneside seems to have been out in the cold. The same thing applied in the case of the Benson Report. As the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) said, the future of Consett depends on the proposals of the National Steel Corporation.
Consett is the lowest cost steelworks at present. That is a very important factor. I feel very strongly about this, as a British subject. The man who evolved the new method of steel production now operated at Consett was British. He made his proposals available to this country, but, as we are always so cautious, his

ideas were not acceptable and he had to go to Austria to develop them.
A very real lesson should be learnt from that. I visited Consett the other day and heard the whole story and I thought to myself how short-sighted the British can be. But, although this process is now known as an Austrian process, it is at least satisfactory to know that the brains behind it were British. I hope that, in future, we shall be a little more expansive in looking at developments proposed by British brains. It is important to have on the record that this process of steel making which is operated at Consett produces the cheapest steel. That is another reason why we view with pleasure the future development of Consett.
When I asked a Question recently about the National Steel Corporation, and what it was doing about the possibility of fixed-price control for steel products—which question affects shipbuilding and ship-repairing—I was very surprised to be told that there was no National Steel Corporation. That flummoxed me for a moment. However, I have put down a Question for answer tomorrow. Perhaps I shall then be able to discover exactly what sort of position the Corporation has got itself into. All these things tends to lose us valuable time on the Tyne. All those who are engaged in taking part in the debate today look to the Government to overcome the disadvantages under which the Tyne has laboured for some time, so that we can now go ahead.
We were all very pleased when, last week, Lord Rochdale and some of his associates visited the Tyne. We have waited a long time for this to happen. I only hope that the interest recently shown about the future of the Tyne by Members of Parliament for the North-East will be rewarded. Lord Rochdale has heard from the experts on the Tyne what proposals they have to put forward, and I now hope that he will not take a long time to make up his mind, so that we can go ahead with our efforts.
The creation of a sufficient depth of water and of the requisite unloading facilities to accommodate 100,000-ton bulk carriers is already beginning to take shape. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he has already asked the Tyne Improvement Commission for


its views and ideas, and that if the Commission puts them forward in concrete terms the go-ahead will be given without any delay. As far as I understand, there does not seem to be any difficulty in being able to provide facilities for these 100,000-ton bulk carriers on the Tyne, but we must get on with the job because the people of Tyneside are becoming extremely worried about its future.
I want to put on record the fact that at a meeting last year the Tyneside Chamber of Commerce initiated proposals to find solutions for the various problems of the Tyne. Following that meeting, many Questions were asked in the House, and I thought that it would be a good idea to write to the Prime Minister and ask him to receive a deputation. I always believe in going to the top. I had a charming letter from the Prime Minister—he is very good at writing charming letters—refusing to see a deputation, although it would have been an all-party deputation, because he thought that all the Ministers concerned were well aware of the problems and were read to face them. I received that reply about 23rd January.
I then thought that it would be a good idea to make contact between Members of Parliament and the Tyne Improvement Commission at an official level. I was glad when the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. H. N. Burrell, arranged a conference for us last Friday. He had many of his officials there, and we discussed all kinds of issues and problems affecting the Tyne. The Lord Lieutenant—the Duke of Northumberland—was also present. As a result of that conference, we all now form a fairly united body, and we want to go straight ahead.
I do not want to be controversial with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott), but, although we always hear about Newcastle's Scandinavian trade it should be pointed out that the ships sail from North Shields, which is in my constituency. I agree that Newcastle is properly placed to deal with Scandinavian trade; it is a "natural". Everybody talks about tourists landing at Newcastle, but I am proud to say that they land at North Shields and have to be conveyed from the quay there to Newcastle by train.
The people of South Shields, therefore, have as much interest in Scandinavian

trade and in roll-off and roll-on—which I hope will be developed—as have the people of Newcastle. Newcastle is lucky in being able to say that it is the port for the Tyne, but in my constituency I have Smith's docks, the greatest ship-repairing yard in the world. South Shields carries out the bulk of ship-repairing for the Tyneside.
I am glad that we now have an established body—including the Tyne Improvement Commission, the Tyneside Chamber of Trade, Members of Parliament, industrialists representing Consett, and our Lord Lieutenant—which is all out to exercise as much pressure as possible in the interests of the Tyne. We may be knocking at an open door, but I want us to be able to move forward quickly now.
I appreciate that a lot of money is involved, but we are offering value for money on the Tyne, whether it be in terms of the importation of ore and its subsequent distribution, or in terms of ship repairing, timber, or wheat. The Tyne can offer value for money. We must get over the drawbacks that have arisen in respect of the National Ports Council and the Benson Report.
The hon. Member for South Shields referred to an economic survey. I have made a few inquiries, and have been told that an economic survey would take a very long time. I am rather anti-survey, not because surveys do not produce anything in the end, but because they take so long that something may die before the results of the survey arrive. I understand that the Port of London started to have consultants and spent a great deal of money on paying them, but that nothing happened as a result. I do not know whether their recommendations were good, bad or indifferent.
Consultants can talk about things, but on the Tyne we have eminent, highly-skilled, technical, business, professional and workpeople who can do the job. They know what is wanted. That is the great thing. We all know now what is wanted. That is the value of this debate. It will be in HANSARD for everybody to see. We want to get on with the job.
I am glad that we have had this debate. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies we shall be told


that these are at least embryo proposals and that they can begin to be looked at. I am sure that before long the Tyne Improvement Commission will be putting forward its proposals.
There is another thing that I should like to get straight on the record, because there are people, including, no doubt, many of our colleagues in the House, who will ask what part the Northern Economic Planning Council is to play in this. My view of the Northern Economic Planning Council, which has responsibility for the region—I do not criticise that—is that at present its interest is in the development of Teesside and not so much the development of Tyneside. It would be very difficult for a planning council which has overall responsibility to concentrate purely and simply on the Tyne. That is why it is so important to have our own efforts and to use the people who are there and to get the Government to co-operate with us.
I would also like to pay tribute, because the hon. Member for Consett did not mention this in specific terms, to the Durham County Council, which is not noted for its support of the Conservative Party, which has brought out an excellent memorandum on the social aspects of what is done by the Consett Iron and Steel Works for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Mr. Watkins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me of the excellent Report of the Durham County Council, which had, of course, been drawn to my attention. The hon. Lady will, recognise that the Report dealt not so much with the social work of the Consett Iron Company, but with the social effects of the existence of the steelworks and the serious effects which would arise from any running down of it.

Dame Irene Ward: That was what I meant to imply, so I am grateful to the hon. Member. I have heard from all sides what an excellent document that report was and I was grateful to the Clerk of the Durham County Council for sending me a copy. I agree that it deals with the social implications of life for the whole community in Durham County if the development of the Consett iron and steel works is in any way impeded. It was an admirable report.
It is no good discussing the Northern Economic Planning Council, because it seems at present to be concerned mostly with the development of Teesside.

Mr. Blenkinsop: To get the record straight, may I say that the Planning Council has set up an important group to study the whole port facilities of the North-East, including some of the smaller ports as well.

Dame Irene Ward: I am glad to hear that from the hon. Member, but it is exactly like a governmental Cabinet. The Government have responsibility for all sorts of things, and we know what happens when it comes to a Cabinet decision. I say this because I sometimes get annoyed with Cabinets, not only the present Socialist Cabinet, but I used to get annoyed with the Conservative Cabinet about things in which I was interested from the North-East Coast or, indeed, the national point of view. If the Minister concerned was not strong enough, items in which one was interested would go to the bottom of the agenda. I am not in the least impressed, except that it is a good idea for the Northern Economic Planning Council to set up a study group.
The Northern Economic Planning Council produced a great volume called "Challenge to the North", or whatever its annual report was. I do not see that council getting up and demanding action from the Government. I put down a few Questions, but we do not seem to have got much further. I would rather have the future of the Tyne in the kind of hands that we have all indicated this morning rather than place too much reliance on the Northern Economic Planning Council, which seems to be imbued with the future of Teesside. I know that Teesside is important to the economy, but that area has the great advantage of having a developing I.C.I. It is like the relationship of Birmingham and London, which has tended to isolate the North-East. The present Government tend to isolate Newcastle with their transfer of railway personnel from Newcastle to York. I get very nervous about these things. I am nervous, also, because nobody has said anything about marine engineering, which is one of our great industries on the Tyne. A great many trade union representatives are coming to see me. This is quite a new development


in political circles. I am not used to having a lot of trade unionists coming to see me, but they are getting worried. They want to explain their problems about shipbuilding, marine engineering and ship repairing to both sides of the House. This they have done, and I am very glad about it, because it emphasises the non-party character of this approach.
We have to act on our own. We must exert our pressures. We have the people on Tyneside to exercise their pressures. All we want now is to convince the Government that we mean business. We have the protection and the future interest of the Tyne at heart. All we now want is to make sure that the Government know just how much we require from them and that we are prepared to have Adjournment debates whenever we can unless we get immediate and speedy action so that the Tyne can be restored not only to her former glory, but also to an ever-increasing prosperous future.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: It is not my intention to delay the House more than two or three minutes, because my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will want as much time as possible to deal with the many points which have been raised.
First, however, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) for not having been present when he opened this important debate, despite the fact that I have been in the House since 7.30 this morning. This indicates what difficulties one has in determining exactly what time an Adjournment debate is likely to begin during a morning sitting having regard to the difficulties which have so far manifested themselves. The importance of this debate is clearly emphasised by the fact that it has already lasted almost two hours, which would not have been possible under the old arrangements.
It is not my intention to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) along the devious paths which she has chosen to follow in addressing herself to the subject. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields corrected the misinterpretation that the hon. Lady has obviously placed upon Northern Economic

Planning Council and its approach to port development. When the hon. Lady alleges that the council is concerned only with Teesport, it is well to remember that this is directly attributable to the fact that Teesport was selected by the Rochdale Committee as one of the major ports for development. It is equally well to remember that the Rochdale Committee was set up by the hon. Lady's own Government.
Therefore, if there is emphasis on Teesport to the detriment of the Tyne and, indeed, of the Weir, it is wrong to blame the Northern Economic Planning Council, which has already set up its own inquiry into the whole port situation in the northern region.
Specifically on the question of the development of facilities on the Tyne, I was pleased to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), who admirably recounted the difficulties which will face the steel industry in Consett if development does not take place quickly. There would inevitably be serious social and economic effects if the Consett works were eventually to be closed and lost to the region.
This is a matter of concern not only to Tyneside Members, but to people beyond Tyneside as well. The Economic Planning Council is heavily involved in providing facilities to ensure the resurgence of the economy of the northern region, a development which has had a good deal more impetus and emphasis in the last two and a half years.
Representations were recently made to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister of Power on the related questions of Consett and the development of Tyne facilities. It was then proposed, only a few weeks ago, that there should be joint discussions between the two Departments and Members of Parliament to ensure that the importance of this subject was fully borne in on everyone and that quick action was taken. Perhaps the time is now opportune for a meeting of that kind. We await with interest what my hon. Friend has to say in reply to this debate.
I understand that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. W. R. Elliott) has referred to the importance of better facilities for the development of


further trade with our E.F.T.A. partners in Scandinavia. This is an admirable idea. Whatever happens regarding possible British entry into the Common Market, both now and in the future it is eminently desirable to extend and improve facilities for trade with these countries which are our partners in E.F.T.A.
About 13 months ago, the three words, "Time for decision", were much used on election platforms in this country. I put it to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and all my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government who are responsible for these matters that now is the time for decision if the economic development of the northern region is not to be retarded and if progress is to continue with the same spirit and impetus as it has had during the last two or three years.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I interpose with a point of order which may be of some interest? Normally, attendance in the Chamber at morning sittings is very sparse. On this occasion, I congratulate hon. Members from the northern region on the way in which they have turned out and on the speeches which, I understand, have been made from both sides. But, quite apart from the question of normal attendance on morning sittings, I wish to point out that tomorrow morning there will be a great rush of Members into the Chamber—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman taking part in the debate, or is he raising a point of order?

Mr. Lewis: I am raising a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am explaining it so that I may have an answer from you.
Tomorrow morning, there will be a rush of Members into the Chamber to reserve their seats for the Budget debate. I imagine that there will be a greater turn-out tomorrow morning, although there is not a morning sitting then, than there has been for a long time. If the tradition is followed, there may well be queues at the door and Members will be here very early to claim places for the Budget debate.
I should like you to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it will be possible for you to arrange that those of us who

have been here this morning, and those who usually attend morning sittings, may have a special opportunity, without coming tomorrow morning, to put Prayer cards on the backs of the seats, to book their places for the Budget debate. I am sure that this would be an arrangement genuinely appreciated by hon. Members who attend morning sittings, and, further—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is not raising a point of order. If it is a matter which he wishes to raise in a speech on the Adjournment, he is entitled to do so, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to make representations to the usual channels either through the Serjeant at Arms, who is concerned with these matters, or through the Chair. There is no one on the Government side whom I can ask to give a reply now. If it were a special Adjournment debate, I should want someone to reply.
Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be prepared to reply from the Chair? I thought that the best thing to do was to ask you that special facilities should be given to those who attend morning sittings so that they could book their seats straight away without having to turn up again tomorrow morning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair does not answer Adjournment debates. He has made his point. I have no doubt that due notice will be taken of it by anyone who thinks that due notice should be taken of it.

12.16 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): It is one of the advantages of the speedy conduct of business at morning sittings that we can have a prolonged Adjournment debate which enables many hon. Members to participate. This morning's debate seems so much to have impressed the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) that he thinks that we should have a special prize for our conduct. I think that that may be going a bit too far, but, undoubtedly, there have been many forceful and fascinating contributions on the


future of Tyneside. Many hon. Members, whether present in the Chamber or not, will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) for initiating the debate and for the cogent case on behalf of Tyneside which he put.
The debate has ranged widely, raising many matters which are the concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for example, the future of the iron and steel industry, which is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, and developments in shipping, which are mainly the concern of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I assure the House that specific points on these matters regarding Tyne-side—the development of shipping, the iron and steel industry, and so on—will be brought by me to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned the future of coastwise shipping. I call his attention and that of the House to the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade and I recently met a powerful national deputation from the National Union of Seamen to discuss the whole question of the future development of coastwise shipping, including many points which specifically concern Tyneside, especially the relationship with the co-ordinated transport plan prepared by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
Although the interests of shipping come under the Board of Trade, we in the Ministry of Transport are concerned that all the interests of coastal shipping should be taken into account in the development of a co-ordinated expansion of rail and road traffics, and we shall keep in mind from this point of view the possibility of reinvigorating coastal shipping. We are very much aware of the special difficulties experienced on Tyneside, particularly the falling off in the coal trade, which was mentioned by practically all hon. Members who have spoken, and which culminated in the closing of Tyne Dock to coal traffic at the beginning of this month.
I must preface what I have to say by two points which may appear a little obvious to many hon. Members but which

must be said in reply to the major case made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. First, the function of a port is to provide facilities for the handling of traffic. We must always remember that the ports are there to give a service to industry and shipping Expansion of the ports depends on the demands of industry and the development of the shipping trade. Secondly, the responsibility for making proposals for port development to meet traffic needs rests in each port authority, and not on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. My right hon. Friend depends on the port authorities to put forward proposals for development in relation to the needs and interests of their regions.
My first point does not mean that port facilities should be provided only to handle either existing traffic or traffic which is guaranteed for the future. It may well be right in many cases to anticipate traffic growth, to take account of the possibility that provision of new facilities may of itself attract traffic not at present using the port, or to encourage development of existing traffics. But here I must make a distinction. General cargo facilities may serve a wide variety of shippers or of cargoes. The provision of new berths and the introduction of modern handling facilities may be justified by the extent to which efficiency can be improved or costs can be cut, as well as by the prospect of increased trade. A real prospect of enough trade to provide a reasonable return on the investment may be sufficient without a firm guarantee of that trade. Provision can sometimes rightly be made to some extent "on spec".
But where port facilities are required only for the bulk carriage of a particular commodity to or from particular installations that is not the case. For example—an absurd example—there would be no point in building a major oil port in a part of the country where there were neither refineries nor pipelines for the oil. It would be equally pointless to construct a deep channel for large bulk carriers where none are likely to use the port. I stress this because it is crucial to the two points causing most concern on the Tyne at present and which loomed large this morning: the future of the coal traffic and the prospects for the iron-ore traffic.
First, the coal traffic has fallen dramatically, as several hon. Members said. Exports have fallen from the all-time peak of 21½ million tons in 1923 to 3·9 million tons in 1966, the lowest figure since the middle of the last century. Even after the Second World War exports reached 9½ million tons in 1950. But now Tyne Dock, which at the height of its prosperity shipped several million tons of coal a year, closed to coal traffic at the beginning of this month. Other staiths have closed over the years. Coal exports from the Tyne depend on the coal industry of the area, and have declined with it.
Secondly, the prospects for the import of iron ore must also depend on those of the industry it serves. The Tyne has facilities for the import of iron ore for the Consett steelworks which have allowed ore to be imported in larger vessels than could hitherto be handled at ports serving the other major steelworks. But this advantage is disappearing, as current projects will enable Port Talbot, for instance, to take still larger vessels in the next few years. The economic size of vessel is constantly increasing, and it may be that if Consett is to be developed facilities for even larger ore vessels may have to be provided in the area. Similarly, if there is any firm proposal for any other industry requiring bulk imports in large vessels to develop on the Tyne, it may be right to provide the facilities, including dredging a deep channel. Special jetties for oil handling have, indeed, been provided in recent years. But such special facilities are both expensive and wholly dependent on individual decisions by major industries or firms. They cannot be provided "on spec".
That brings me to the second of the points I made at the beginning of my speech. If there is in future a need to make provision of this sort, it must be for the port authority or, behind it, the user, or prospective users and port authorities together, to prepare and submit proposals.
I now come to the question of the so-called "misconception" mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and many other hon. Members. The National Ports Council is responsible for the broad planning of our ports, and it has made its view on the Tyne plain. It

sees its future, as does the Northern Economic Planning Council, as a medium-sized port serving mainly local needs, and has, therefore, not included it in its interim development plan. But that does not mean any disregard on our part of the need for development in the area and the future of the port.
As many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said, when Lord Rochdale was in the area last Wednesday he emphasised that the National Ports Council is prepared to consider schemes for those ports not covered by the interim plan where it is plain, as a result of local discussions, that new facilities are obviously needed. But these schemes must be worked out first not by the National Ports Council or the Ministry but by the port authority itself in conjunction with prospective users in the area.
The National Ports Council will then advise my right hon. Friend on particular proposals from any area submitted to her, but the Council does not prepare or undertake schemes. My right hon. Friend is responsible, as Minister of Transport, for authorising port investments projects costing over £500,000. But she does not invent them or undertake them. It is for the port authorities to take the initial decision.
As the general manager of the port authority declared in a letter to the Press, in reply to an expression of views by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, no proposal to provide a deep channel or new ore berth is before us at the moment. Perhaps we might not expect such proposals to come forward until the future of Consett has become clearer. We trust that that will be in the very near future.

Mr. Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend will recognise that that is almost a form of words. The authority is eager to provide the necessary detailed projects. The only thing holding it up is, as my hon. Friend says, the question of rather clearer understanding about future developments at Consett. It has the proposals and wants to get them to the Minister.

Mr. Swingler: I well understand that, and the decisions must be made on the submission of development proposals based upon calculations and assessment of the extent that the port will be used, which depend on decisions in other industries. The fact that reorganisation is


going on in the industries or in the ports should not be used by anyone as an excuse for not getting on with the job of technical modernisation or the submission of proposals in the meantime.
We know that, in regard to ports, estuarial groupings and major reorganisations are to take place but we shall not permit this to deter us from taking decisions on immediately necessary improvements. I hope that those concerned on Tyneside will push ahead with the discussions and processes of industrial decision-making in order that clear proposals can be formulated.
We well understand the difficulties. We are extremely glad to see a new scheme like the one at Whitehill Point operating so successfully. My right hon. Friend's predecessor took a decision on that. I assure my hon. Friends that we will do the best we can. Port modernisation grants will be made available for any projects that meet the criteria. Indeed, my right hon. Friend recently announced that payment of the modernisation grants would be speeded up.
My right hon. Friend undertakes to consider, with the National Ports Council, any projects for major developments submitted to her. In doing so, we will pay full attention not only to the implications for port planning generally but also for the development of Tyneside and the North-East as a whole.
We pay great attention to the advice of the Northern Economic Planning Council and of its Ports Working Group, whose recent establishment my right hon. Friend has welcomed very much and in whose work the Ministry is already co-operating. I know, for example, that it is studying one of the subjects mentioned by my hon. Friend—traffic from the new towns and its bearing on these issues.
But the main responsibility for the development of the Tyne's port facilities must rest with the port authorities, the shipping interests and, of course, the men. My right hon. Friend and I welcome the initiative shown by the Tyne Improvement Commissioners in undertaking a survey to establish whether a deep channel to take iron ore vessels drawing up to 43 ft. of water, could be provided.
We hope that, on the management side, the Tyne authorities will adopt a positive

attitude towards improvements and will co-operate fully with the North-East Economic Planning Council's Ports Working Group, for example, and will play their part in any joint surveys proposed in the North-East. Similarly, we hope that the trade unions will co-operate in all respects in the introduction of modern methods of handling traffic.
In all this, we will play our part so long as those directly concerned play their part in ensuring that the port meets adequately and efficiently the needs of shipping and the shipping companies and will prepare proposals on the basis of the most up-to-date information on the industrial development in the region.

Orders of the Day — COUNCIL HOUSES (SALE)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I understand that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) has intimated to Mr. Speaker that, if time permits, he wishes to raise a second subject on the Adjournment and that he has given notice to the Minister concerned.

12.34 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I am grateful for an opportunity to raise the important subject of the sale of council houses. I had hoped at one stage that we might have a longer time for the debate, but the previous subject, naturally, had priority. I am grateful to Mr. Speaker and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise this subject and to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who is to reply at such short notice.
This is a very appropriate time to discuss the problem of the sale of council houses, since the latest guidance from the Ministry—Circular 24/67 in England and 20/67 in Wales—came into operation on 1st April, barely a week ago. This is the first time, therefore, that the House has had the opportunity of debating this highly important circular and it is certainly an opportune moment. Since my remarks will be mainly concerned with that circular I hope, although the hon. Gentleman has not had much notice of the debate, that most of the points I raise will be familiar to him.
The circular refers to both the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Wales, who is also a signatory. However, I shall refer only to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have something to say about the Labour Party's inherent dislike of the sale of council houses to sitting tenants, even though the circular falls short of actually directing local authorities to stop selling them in anticipation of a new law to make such sales illegal. What a retrograde step that would be and it would be speedily repealed by us when we returned to power.
The original power to sell council houses was contained in the Housing Act, 1957, which was followed by a circular in February, 1960, when Lord Brooke of Cumnor was Minister of Housing and Local Government. That circular gave further impetus to the policy of selling council houses to sitting tenants, but stressed that councils should not ask "sacrificial" prices for them, although sales at something less than market value could be justified in the case of persons needing a house for their own occupation.
One local authority last year embarked on a most successful policy of selling council houses to sitting tenants. As I see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) present, I shall say no more about that. Now I turn to the circular.
In the first paragraph, the Minister's own views become clear, for it says:
Circular 5/60 and the general consent contained in it are withdrawn as from April 1st.
The second paragraph refers to the sales of existing council houses, averaging about 2,300 houses a year compared with about 4 million houses owned by local authorities, and it also mentions that several authorities have considered selling houses on a wider basis than before. Since Birmingham alone is already selling council houses at the rate of 2,000 a year and, as a result of events later this week, other authorities may embark on this policy, it seems very likely that this figure will increase still more sharply.
I accept, therefore, that this was the moment for the Minister to make his abhorrence of such sales known both to the councils and to the public at large, and I count myself fortunate to have the opportunity of assisting him in his efforts

to make his views more widely known. In paragraph 3 of the circular, he expresses the view that where there is still an unsatisfied demand for houses to let at moderate rents, in general council houses should not be sold because this would postpone the time when an adequate supply of rented houses would become available and families on the waiting list would have to wait longer for a vacancy. That is nonsense.

Mr. Ivor Richard: Why?

Mr. Berry: I am making my own speech.
The argument used by the Minister is irrelevant and cannot be substantiated. Provided that certain minimum conditions as to price are met and other restrictions concerned with the letting or selling of houses built before 1945 within five years of the original sale are also met, these sales can be carried out in accordance with the 1960 circular.
These restrictions make it certain that, unless the Labour Party is preparing to evict tenants from council houses so as to make room for those waiting, the fact that a house is sold to the sitting tenant makes no difference. If the hon. Gentleman repeats that claim today, I shall be left with the inevitable conclusion that this is what the Government have in mind.
In the same paragraph of the circular, the suggestion is also made that the sale of a substantial number of the older houses and their replacement by new houses to let could have the effect of unnecessarily increasing the rents of the remaining houses or putting extra charges on the general ratepayers or both. This would only be the case if the purchase price was kept artificially low. As long as the councils keep the pre-emptive rights for five years, and sell at proper market prices, these sales would have no effect at all on the rents of other houses.
Another claim is that a reduction in the number of houses available to let would result in a smaller number available for those wishing to have transfers and exchanges. There is a substance of truth in this in that, under the Labour Government, a few more houses have been built. But this cannot be overcome by more restrictions, but only by more houses.
Next, the claim is made that the loss of rent income from the older houses and any Exchequer subsidy would be less than the savings of the repair costs and also some savings of management costs. The circular says that even if there is a benefit to the housing revenue account, it is unlikely to be sufficient to reduce the cost of new houses to the level of those sold, even allowing for the higher rate of subsidy on the new houses. This is a deliberately pessimistic and biased approach. It is my belief that the sale of council houses will release capital which can then be employed in new construction without further expensive borrowing at high rates of interest.
There will be reductions in management and repair expenditure. Others will benefit from the improvement, not only those who remain as council tenants, but the ratepayers as a whole. Anyone reading the circular might think that the Minister at this stage deprecated the sale of any more council houses, but he does not. He goes on to give examples of cases where it is approved of. As a London Member, I would like to see this consent given by the Minister adopted in London. As The Times rightly pointed out, on March 22:
Mr. Greenwood's reasoning about the superiority of having large pools of council houses would be more impressive if the pool were not so often stagnant. In London, the re-letting rate is just under 2 per cent.…
The great majority of men and women would like to own their own homes. Those who live in council houses and flats are an important part of the majority. I stand 100 per cent, in support of those who wish to have that opportunity, and I hope that through this brief debate we may know just where the Government stand. I have stated my own position and that of my party clearly.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): The hon. Gentleman said that his party's policy was to sell to existing council tenants, both houses and flats. I would like to get this clear. Is that the policy of the Conservatives in the Greater London area, because it has already been said by them that they are concerned only with houses?

Mr. Berry: I was certainly stating party policy on houses. I would like to see the policy extended to flats in the not too distant future.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: This is a useful debate for the one good reason that it gives this House, although somewhat sparsely attended, and the country, particularly the London electorate, an opportunity of realising once again how half-baked Conservative housing policy really is. It is founded upon one or two fundamental misconceptions. One has to do with the existing housing position of the country and another is about what any Government, of whatever complexion, ought to do.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) quoted from the circular. It is interesting to observe that paragraph 2 states:
From 1960 to 1965 annual sales of existing council houses averaged about 2.300 a year, compared with the total stock of some four million houses owned by local authorities.
If it is now such a fundamental part of Conservative housing policy that local authority tenants should have the right to buy their own council houses, why was the rate so low during the last four years of the Conservative Administration? Why was it running at only 2,300 a year? Where is this great demand on the part of council tenants, all queuing outside the building societies, or the local authority offices, to get their mortgages? Is it a queue which has formed only during the last two years, or is it a queue which was there, but was unsatisfied by the last Conservative Administration?
Is the truth not that there is a certain demand, but as usual with the Conservative Party, when faced with an election, anything that smells as if it might have votes in it is grasped to the bosoms of hon. Gentlemen opposite in an attempt to win Londoners away from what is clearly the right allegiance.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): The hon. Gentleman asked why this was not done under the Conservative Administration. It is perfectly simple: because Labour was in control at County Hall and the County Council owned the houses.

Mr. Richard: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that at


that time the Conservative Government, of which he was a prominent member, sitting on the Front Bench, were advocating to the Greater London Council, or, as it was, the London County Council, that it ought to sell off its existing stock of council houses? I have been active in London politics since 1953, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that this Greater London Council election is the first in my experience in which this matter has played any major part.
Maybe the right hon. Gentleman was making clucking noises to the L.C.C. at the time. I do not know, but I do know that this has suddenly come into electoral prominence.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose—

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman must restrain himself. I will not give way again.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. Is it in accordance with the customs of the House for the hon. Gentleman to ask me a specific question and, when I rise to give him an answer, to decline to give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the conventions of the House as well as I am. Some questions are put rhetorically and others are not. There is a convention that if a direct question is put the hon. Member gives way, but there is no absolute obligation to do so.

Mr. Richard: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If I may now return to the subject of this debate, originated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate, and supported by the somewhat impetuous interruptions of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), it seems that what the Tory Party is advocating in the Greater London elections is founded upon a few misconceptions.
The first is that there is already in existence a sufficient stock of rented accommodation to satisfy the demand. Quite clearly, there is not. One of the first things that the present Government had to do when they assumed office was to try to reverse the direction in which council building had gone. During the first 10 years of the Conservative Party's

guidance on these affairs, the number of council houses being built in England declined from a peak in 1953 to 1956 to the end of the decade, and only began to pick up again in 1962 and 1963. I know that in my own Borough of Hammersmith there is a large waiting list. The Greater London Council has a very large waiting list. I do not see how selling off part of the existing pool of rented accommodation aids the people on the waiting list.
It does not happen. What happens is that one more unit of accommodation is removed from the total number of units of accommodation available for letting. This seems to be a thoroughly retrograde step. The second misconception is that there is not a sufficient stock of houses available for sale in the private sector. On figures given recently in the House in connection with another Ministry, at any given moment in Great Britain there are between 80,000 and 100,000 houses available for sale. What a Government, and what an authority ought to do in those circumstances, is to make it as attractive and as easy as possible for council tenants, or anyone else, who wishes to purchase one of those houses already available for sale.
By all means let us give them 100 per cent. mortgages and cut legal fees on the conveyancing; by all means let us look at stamp duty. The two pillars upon which any sensible housing policy needs to be founded are, first, an attempt to increase, not decrease, the number of houses available for letting, both public and private. I accept that the private sector has a rôle to play. The second pillar is to make it as easy as possible for people to own their own homes by giving them Government mortgages, if necessary up to 100 per cent.
This is surely the sensible way to deal with this and I am bound to confess that the party opposite, all three of them—there are four of us—is basing its agitation, as we have seen before in connection with other London matters, particularly the timing of the elections, upon electoral motives. I have said before that no one is quite so good at wrapping up an electoral motive in a constitutional principle as the party opposite. This is another example of the rather blatant and hypocritical way in which its hopes to win votes at the elections next Thursday.


I am happy and relieved to tell hon. Members opposite that they will fail.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him whether he is aware that the answer to the question which he put to me, but did not have the courage to give me the opportunity to answer, is that the Conservative Government, by their circular of 1960, gave a general consent to the sale of council houses by all local authorities and that that line is wholly consistent with the line which my colleagues are taking on the G.L.C., on the Birmingham Council and elsewhere?

12.50 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) would be the first to concede that since the circular to which he refers was published there has been a G.L.C. election. After the London Government Act had been implemented, and the Conservatives were convinced that they had so rigged the position that it was certain that they would win London for the first time, throughout the whole of the campaign in 1964, four years after the circular, not one mention was made by the Conservative Party, at either Government or G.L.C. level, about the sale of council houses to sitting tenants.
Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is absolutely right when he asks the Conservative Party why this matter has suddenly become an important issue. Why is it that at this time, when a G.L.C. election is progressing, the sale of council houses has suddenly become important to the Conservatives? Why was it not important in 1964? Speaking as one who has been a Member of the House for over 20 years, and who has watched the Conservatives mostly in power, I do not recall the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames saying a word on this subject. I know the right hon. Gentleman extremely well. He was a very lively and intelligent member of the Conservative Administration. I do not recall hearing great speeches from him urging local councils to review their policies and to sell council houses to tenants.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to remember all my speeches—I find that unexciting enough myself—but he will see, if he looks back to the housing debates of a year or two ago, that I made this point several times. Since he has been good enough to give way, may I also take up his point about 1964 and subsequently. I have a very clear recollection of this point being put from Conservative platforms at that time. It has been the practice of a number of Conservative-controlled local authorities.

Mr. Mellish: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely fair debater, he is talking a lot of humbug when he says that this was an issue at the 1964 G.L.C. election. I was very much involved in that election, as I am involved in the present election, and I would have been alerted to the fact if the point had been raised. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it was not raised.
I come now to the very important point which the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) mentioned, the right of a man to own his own house. The idea seems to have got abroad—at least some hon. Members opposite are trying to put it abroad—that the Labour Government are interested only in people becoming council tenants and not in people becoming owners of their property. I want to nail that lie. It has been suggested that the G.LC., about which so much has been said in the last few weeks, particularly by the party opposite and some of its representatives who are trying to get power, is anti those who wish to own their own houses. Let me give the facts.
About £125 million has been advanced by the G.L.C. on its house purchase scheme. People have been queueing over Westminster Bridge to get loans under it. The G.L.C. is the most progressive council in the country when it comes to letting people have money to buy their own homes. This nails the lie that the Labour Government and their friends in local government are opposed to people owning their own homes. It is a fact that on the question of selling council houses to existing tenants the Government and, indeed, the G.L.C. have rested their argument on the simple point that the need for council property in London is overwhelming.
The hon. Member for Southgate, whom I have known for some time, and whom I regard as a very honourable Member, forgot the all-important and relevant fact that there are 125,000 people on the waiting lists of the various London boroughs crying out for local authority housing. It is criminal to sell council property when there is the likelihood that such people will be affected and their chances diminished.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: Mr. Reginald Eyre (Birmingham, Hall Green) rose—

Mr. Mellish: I have only 10 minutes in which to speak and I have given way once
The hon. Gentleman says that the sale of council houses to existing tenants does not hurt people on the waiting list. Let me give some more relevant figures. The hon. Gentleman mentioned, almost as an aside, that the number of relets is only 2 per cent., or something like that, and that it is not important. Let me give him some figures. The number of relets last year alone was about 10,000. Even more important was the number of transfers within existing accommodation—the family growing up which needs larger accommodation and the family which is becoming aged and needs smaller accommodation. Here the figures are even more dramatic. Over 20,000 transfers took place right across the board.
Those running the G.L.C. election for the Conservative Party have said again and again that they are concerned only with houses. I do not understand this argument. If it is good enough for a person to buy his house, why is it not good enough for a person in my constituency to buy his flat? The G.L.C. Tories have said that they will not allow that. The Conservatives have raised this as a political gimmick at the time when the G.L.C. elections are to take place. I would say in the name of the 125,000 people on our waiting list that I believe this idea to be absolutely criminal.
A Gallup poll was published about a fortnight ago. The timing of it is interesting. From where did it come? It came from the Aims of Industry, which carried out a special survey which showed that 89 per cent.—a remarkable figure—of council tenants wanted to buy their flats and houses. I can only say from my experience—and I am a London

Member—that that is not my impression of what is wanted by those living in council property in a constituency like mine. No doubt there are some, but nothing like the figures mentioned by Aims of Industry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised when I say that I very much suspect the Aims of Industry. I do not think that it is a reputable body. I believe that it is an appendage of the Conservative Party, and has been for many years. Its sole purpose is to destroy the Labour Party and to do all the harm and damage which it can. Therefore, any policy which it runs—

Mr. Eyre: Mr. Eyre rose—

Mr. Mellish: I cannot give way.
Any policy which Aims of Industry runs is highly suspect. But the G.L.C. elections are now in full swing and the people will be asked to judge.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mellish: One thing which I have noticed with great interest is that this great passionate plea for the sale of council houses is not going as well as was suspected.

Mr. Berry: rose—

Mr. Mellish: No.
The Conservatives running the G.L.C. election seemed to have dropped this plea from their curriculum. It is evident at the Press conferences each day that the Conservative Party has decided that this is not such an election winner as it thought.

Mr. Berry: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to put one question?

Mr. Mellish: The average Londoner is very intelligent. That is why he has voted Labour since 1934. The Labour Party has been in control of County Hall since 1934, and it will remain in control. Londoners are too intelligent to stand for the sort of gimmickry which has been introduced in the last few weeks by the Conservatives, believing that they would get a lot of votes as a consequence.
The facts are these. There are 125,000 people crying out for council property. The G.L.C. has lent to the people of London about £125 million to enable them to own their own homes, which is


a demonstration of the fact that the Labour Party is identified with the principle of people buying their own houses and becoming genuine, property-owning democrats. The Government have introduced a subsidies Bill in which we make it possible for the first time for those who wish to borrow money to get a lower interest rate by means of the mortgage option scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no good hon. Members opposite jeering. They were in power for 13 years and did not do anything about these matters. Now they jeer at what we are doing. For 13 years they

had the chance to do all these things. In fact, they did nothing about them.
This debate, which I am glad the hon. Member for Southgate has raised albeit suddenly, gives me the chance to say as one with responsibility in the G.L.C. election that the election is now off the ground. The canvass returns make it clear that on Thursday, God willing and given decent weather and an improvement in the present state of apathy among electors—

It being One o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Railwaymen (Talks)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement about the progress of the talks with the railway-men's representatives initiated by the Prime Minister over 12 months ago.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): My right hon. Friend has asked me to apologise to the House for his unavoidable absence this afternoon due to his participation in vital industrial negotiations elsewhere.
The Answer to Question No. 3 is that so far nine joint meetings under Ministry chairmanship have been held, and arrangements made for several others. Between meetings detailed discussions on the matters under consideration are taking place direct between the British Railways Board and the unions. The aim is to complete a review of pay and grade structure of British Railways salaried and conciliation staff by early summer.

Mr. Marten: Can the hon. Gentleman say what benefits, if any, have accrued to the public, the railway travelling public or the taxpayer, as the result of the Prime Minister's intervention?

Mr. Hattersley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is difficult to comment while meetings relating to this subject are going on, and I hope that he will not press me to give any answer which might prejudice those discussions.

Mr. R. Carr: We appreciate the need not to prejudice urgent discussions. However, when the Prime Minister intervenes as he has done, ought not the public to be told what has happened about it?

Mr. Hattersley: The intervention of the Prime Minister made it certain that a major review of wages, structure, organisation and many other facets of British Railways would be undertaken and that is why the negotiations have been so protracted. I hope that this afternoon's meeting will be one step towards getting

the successful conclusion which was made certain by the Prime Minister's original intervention.

Private Pension Schemes (Transferability)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour when he will be able to state the form and timing of legislation to bring about the transferability of private pension schemes.

Mr. Hattersley: We are not yet in a position to make a statement about this.

Mr. Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that this failure to make any statement, or even to say when he will be able to make a statement, and his right hon. Friend's equal failure are causing a great deal of uncertainty throughout the whole of this area? Does he recognise that it is part of Government policy to do what is suggested in the Question? Will he agree to further consideration so that the uncertainty can be brought to an end?

Mr. Hattersley: Certainly I will agree to further consideration, because consideration is perpetual. It is on the matter of making a statement that I cannot be tied to a date.

Mr. John Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this figured a great deal in various election speeches by Ministers about the transferability of pensions and the effect on the mobility of labour? It is not good enough not to be given a time or any further information about when a statement on this important subject will be made by the Government.

Mr. Hattersley: Some help has been given to the House by the report on the subject by the National Joint Advisory Council, but I can only reiterate that this is a subject of some complexity and that actual dates for implementation will have to be awaited.

National Minimum Wage

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Labour whether further consideration is being given to the fixing of a national minimum wage.

Mr. Hattersley: The Government intend to keep under review all ways in which the worst-off members of the community might be helped. The problem is


to ensure that any measures taken confer real and lasting benefit, and are not cancelled out by the reactions of the rest of the community. That is why the Government have to consider the possibilities in their widest context.

Mr. Winnick: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what consideration has been given to Frank Cousins's suggestion of a £15-a-week minimum income? Is it not a disgrace that in 1967 so many people should earn less than £15 a week, people such as retail drapery workers, even though the Prices and Incomes Board does not seem to mind?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend will know from a succession of Wednesday evening debates that the figure of £15 a week is certainly in the Government's mind, but he will also understand that, on the one hand, the Government are being pressed to allow wages to fluctuate freely and, on the other hand, to do something about a minimum level. That poses for the Government specific and very detailed questions.

Mr. R. Carr: Is not the whole concept of the minimum standard of living principally a function of the social services, and should not the Government consider the two together and give some firm statement to the country?

Mr. Hattersley: Certainly the function of a minimum wage as it reflects standard of living is a matter for the social services because it is dependent on family size and commitments as much as on earning power, but questions relating to that aspect of the subject must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security.

Employment Exchanges (Professional and Executive Register)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Labour how many supervisory, secretarial, clerical, executive, managerial and professional vacancies were filled through employment exchanges in each of the years 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966 how many such filled vacancies in each of these categories were in Government Ministries or departments; and how the number of those that were compared with the number filled through private employment agencies.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Fernyhough): The totals of executive, managerial and professional vacancies filled through employment exchanges can be given and with permission I will circulate these in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The other figures required are not available.

Mr. Judd: Would my hon. Friend agree that the general public is not yet aware of the excellent services at a professional level which are provided by the exchanges? Do not these have a key rôle to play in streamlining the economy?

Mr. Fernyhough: Certainly my Department is very glad to have that tribute from my hon. Friend.

Following is the information:

The number of vacancies—other than for technical and scientific posts—filled by the Professional and Executive Register were:


1962
…
…
…
…
5,590


1963
…
…
…
…
5,076


1964
…
…
…
…
5,483


1965
…
…
…
…
6,255


1966
…
…
…
…
6,355

It is not possible to show separately how many of these vacancies were executive, managerial or professional.

I.L.O. Conventions (Ratification)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Labour when the British Government will ratify the outstanding International Labour Office conventions on racial discrimination in employment and on equal pay for men and women.

Mr. Fernyhough: Convention No. 100 concerning equal remuneration for men and women workers and convention No. 1ll which deals with discrimination in respect of employment and occupation on a number of grounds besides race have not yet been ratified by the United Kingdom because in the matter of equal pay between men and women the present position in this country is not in complete conformity with their provisions. The Government fully accept the general principles of these Instruments and, as the House knows, discussions are taking place on equal pay with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.

Mr. Judd: As next year is Human Rights Year, would not my hon. Friend


agree that it ought to see the ratification of these conventions?

Mr. Fernyhough: It would be relatively simple for the Government to sign these conventions, because they ask that the Government should "work towards". It has always been the position of successive Governments, however, that we must be able to be in complete accord before signing the instruments involved.

Dame Irene Ward: Is it possible to have a list of all the things which are under discussion? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that everything is discussion, discussion, discussion, and not action, action, action?

Mr. Fernyhough: I readily agree, and in the 20 years which I have been here nobody has taken more part in those discussions than the hon. Lady.

Unemployment (Scotland)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour if he will indicate the percentage increase in unemployment in Scotland between December, 1966, and March, 1967, or the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will give comparable percentage figures for England and Wales.

Mr. Fernyhough: Between 12th December, 1966, and 13th March, 1967, total numbers registered as unemployed increased in Scotland and Wales by 9·3 and 3·2 per cent., respectively, and decreased in England by 0·9 per cent. For wholly unemployed only the increases were 10·7 per cent. in Scotland, 4·7 per cent. in Wales and 13·5 per cent. in England.

Mr. Taylor: Do not those figures show that, far from being sheltered from the squeeze, Scotland is having a raw time? Will the hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is vital that tomorrow he should do something to boost the Scottish economy?

Mr. Fernyhough: Unless the hon. Gentleman has been absent from the House, he must be aware not only of what the Government are doing for the development areas, but of the further announcement by my right hon. Friend last week about added benefits being brought to the development areas.

Mr. Rankin: In order to permit a proper appreciation of the situation in Scotland, can my hon. Friend give details of the number of persons employed in Scotland at the two dates mentioned?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am sorry, but I cannot give my hon. Friend that information without notice.

Dangerous Machinery

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of Labour when he will introduce legislation to increase the penalty for failing to guard dangerous machinery.

Mr. Fernyhough: The maximum penalty for contraventions of the Factories Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act likely to cause death or bodily injury is now £300. My right hon. Friend has no proposals to increase these penalties at present but they will be reviewed when the Acts are next revised.

Mr. Watkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that anyone who kills another person through dangerously driving a motor car is liable to imprisonment, but that an employer of labour who kills an employee through failing adequately to safeguard dangerous machinery can be fined £300 only? Is not this an anomalous situation in need of rectification?

Mr. Fernyhough: I hope that the solution to this problem does not necessarily lie in the kind of concept which my hon. Friend has advocated. The sum was increased from £100 in 1959 to the present £300 in the last Factories Act, and will be taken into consideration when the Act is revised, whenever that may be.

Dismissal (Right of Appeal)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to provide a right of appeal against dismissal.

Mr. Hattersley: It would be premature to consider this before the examination of any relevant views that may be expressed by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations and before the National Joint Advisory Council has considered the report of its Committee on Dismissals Procedures.

Mr. Ridley: While we all welcome the real progress which has been made towards establishing such a system, would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it would be obnoxious to make the closed shop a ground for fair dismissal and that this must be excluded from any of the grounds as reasonable cause for dismissal? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree with that proposition?

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that on reflection the hon. Member does not expect the Ministry to express a view on this matter before the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations has been presented to the House. That will be the time for this discussion.

Industrial Safety Training Centre (North-East)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of Labour if he will set up an industrial safety training centre in the north-east of England.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Northern Economic Planning Council has proposed to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that the Society should take the initiative in convening representatives of industry and others to assess the need for a centre and the prospects of organising one. We will gladly keep in touch with developments and help in any way we can.

Mr. Watkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware that in the northern economic planning region an average of two persons are killed and 800 are injured every week in industrial accidents and that this is, therefore, urgent?

Mr. Fernyhough: I appreciate the urgency of this matter. I shall be going straight from this House this afternoon to a meeting at which we will be discussing some of these problems.

Unemployment (Development Areas)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of the total number unemployed in the United Kingdom was in the six development area regions in February, 1963, and in February, 1967, respectively.

Mr. Fernyhough: Of the total numbers registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom at June, 1963, and February, 1967, 48·1 per cent. and 38·3 per cent., respectively, were within the five development areas and Northern Ireland. Information for February, 1963, is not available.

Mr. Ridley: I deliberately asked the Parliamentary Secretary the figure for February, 1963. Is he aware that at the height of the previous recession and at the height of this recession the position was almost identical? If he agrees with this, will he now publicly agree that the Prime Minister's claim that this dose of inflation has not hit the regions was so much eyewash?

Mr. Fernyhough: No, I do not agree with the hon. Member, because he is not comparing like with like. There were no development areas in 1963. There were development districts. If hon. Members opposite do not know the difference between a development area as they now obtain and development districts as they then obtained, I will be happy to show them the map and show how relatively ill informed they are.

Mr. R. Carr: Will not the hon. Gentleman answer the Question? Does he not know perfectly well that he could easily produce the statistics asked for in the Question by summing up the figures for each development district and so give them as a comparable figure? Would not that comparable figure fully justify the point made by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Fernyhough: If the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) had asked that Question, my Ministry would have gone to the trouble—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shocking."]—to have found the information. Hon. Members expect to have an Answer to the question they put down—

Mr. Carr: They do.

Mr. Fernyhough: —and that is the Question which I have answered.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That cuts out further supplementary questions.

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mr. Heffer: Thank you very much. I will do the same for you sometime.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. Arising from the announcement by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, had you not already called my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I had not called the hon. Member's hon. Friend.

Mr. Manuel: Further to the point of order. I distinctly heard you call my hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench rose to his feet. There is no doubt about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must be guided by the Chair.

Unemployment

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Labour how many people have now been unemployed for more than three months.

Mr. Fernyhough: At 9th January, 1967, the latest date on which a comprehensive duration analysis of the wholly unemployed in Great Britain was made, 183,612 persons had been registered as unemployed for more than 13 weeks.

Mr. Scott: Do not these figures make the Government's plans for retraining seem woefully inadequate? In view of this evidence of long-term unemployment, what plans have the Government for extending their proposals for retraining?

Mr. Fernyhough: There are plans for extending retraining. Further additional training centres will be completed before the end of this year. Furthermore, the hon. Member must be aware of the additional investment grants and the improved Selective Employment Tax repayments announced by my right hon. Friend last week, all of which will contribute, particularly in the areas which have the highest level of unemployment.

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Labour the average period for which

those wholly unemployed at present have been out of work.

Mr. Fernyhough: I regret that the information is not available but on 13th March, 1967, 58·4 per cent. of the wholly unemployed had been registered for more than eight weeks.

Mr. Scott: Does not that Answer, taken with the previous one, make nonsense of any claim by the Government that what we have endured for the past seven or eight months has been redeployment rather than straightforward unemployment caused by deflationary policy?

Mr. Fernyhough: I can understand the hon. Member's deep concern over this matter. It is shared by myself, my Ministry and all my hon. Friends who sit behind me. I want the hon. Member to know that there is now every sign that these figures will continue to go down. For my part, I will do everything possible to see that the hon. Member has no need to ask a question of that kind by the end of this Parliament.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend take it that there are many hon. Members on this side, apart from what is said on the benches opposite, who are deeply concerned about these figures? Has his Ministry given the necessary advice to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something about reflating the economy in his Budget tomorrow?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not in a position to say what advice my right hon. Friend has tendered in the Cabinet on this issue. My hon. Friend will have to await the Chancellor's statement tomorrow.

Unemployment and Vacancies (South-West Region)

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Labour the ratio of unemployed to vacancies notified in July, 1966, and February, 1967, respectively, in the south-west region.

Mr. Fernyhough: In the south-western region at July, 1966, and February, 1967, there were, respectively, 146·7 and 34·6 notified vacancies remaining unfilled for every hundred registered wholly unemployed.

Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is a satisfactory figure?

Mr. Fernyhough: Of course, I do not think that it is satisfactory.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things to cure this chronic unemployment in the South-West is to increase assistance to the development areas? From the viewpoint of his Ministry, is there any reason technically or administratively why, under the new proposal for a regional employment premium, the premium should not be varied from one region to another within the development areas?

Mr. Fernyhough: I would not like to commit myself on that, but I will see that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Ridley: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the regional premium would do little to help the South-West as there is so little manufacturing industry in that area? Does he realise that he must do something more drastic to solve this problem?

Mr. Fernyhough: I should have thought that we are doing something. At least, the South-West is getting more factories than it had in any comparable period under the previous Administration.

Industrial Training Boards (Youth Employment Officers)

Mr. John Page: asked the Minister of Labour which industrial training boards have a youth employment officer as a member.

Mr. Hattersley: None, Sir.

Mr. Page: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing feeling in the country that careers advising is not really considered important by the Minister of Labour? Surely there is no group of people better equipped than youth employment officers to advise the industrial training boards on the type of training which they need to go in for?

Mr. Hattersley: The advice of youth employment officers is available to many industrial training boards, as they sit on the committees of those training boards.

However, by and large, the boards themselves, having a responsibility for retraining adults as well as young people, feel that it is more appropriate to have representatives of education committees, whose responsibilities cover the more general aspects of educational policy.

Employment Agencies Bill

Mr. John Page: asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he made of the cost of administering the Employment Agencies Bill when drafting the Financial Resolution based on the numbers of inspectors and other staff and on the administrative regional offices required and taking into account the licence fee for an employment agency.

Mr. Fernyhough: It was estimated, on the assumption that there are between 3,000 and 4,000 agencies, that the annual cost of licensing and inspection would be in the region of £35,000. It is intended to recover this cost from licence fees. In addition, there will be the cost of other staff employed mainly on regulation-making work estimated at £13,000 for the first few years.

Mr. Page: While the House will be glad to hear that very modest figure, which is very surprising considering the wide powers which are sought under the Bill being discussed now, may I ask whether the hon. Member is aware that it is the opinion of my right hon. and hon. Friends and many others that the cost will be much greater than that which the hon. Gentleman has given this afternoon?

Mr. Fernyhough: I was pleased to have the best wishes of the hon. Gentleman in the first part of his supplementary question. Only time will tell whether the assumptions on which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are making their guesses are better than the calculations which we have made.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the opinion of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends is not of much value? Is he aware, further, that they said in 1954 that they would bring in a Bill like this but, as usual, did nothing about it?

Mr. Fernyhough: At least my hon. Friend has remedied that position.

Furniture Industry (Unemployment and Short-Time Working)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Labour what are the figures of unemployment and short-time working, respectively, in the furniture industry at the latest date; and what increase in unemployment and short-time working it is estimated will occur in the current year.

Hon. Members: Hurry up.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not used to being bullied, and never will be. I have never wanted to bully anyone.
The answer is: On 13th March, 1967, there were 2,856 persons registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain who last worked in the furniture and upholstery industry (Minimum List Heading 472 of the Standard Industrial Classification). Information for short-time working in March, 1967, is not yet available.
The corresponding unemployment figure for 13th February was 3,160. During the week ended 18th February, 1967, 4,800 operatives were subject to short-time working arrangements in this industry. I am not prepared to give a forecast of the level of unemployment or short-time working.

Mr. Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman, first, accept from me that I would not attempt to bully him? Secondly, will he not agree that the figures of unemployment which he has given represent an increase of about 350 per cent. since December, 1965? Is he aware that manufacturers' order books are much less full than they were a year ago and that, if something is not done to ease the present credit restrictions on the furniture industry, the situation in this coming year is likely to get very much worse?

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman will probably know that a deputation from the trade has met or is about to meet my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and he, of course, is the Minister who would be responsible for any alleviation along the lines which the hon. Gentleman is requesting.

Scientific Staff (Private Industry)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Minister of Labour what reply he has sent to the scientific staff employed in private in-

dustry who are subjected to a standstill of their merit pay who have made representations to him that scientific civil servants of similar qualifications and experience are able to enjoy annual increments.

Mr. Hattersley: We have received no representations specifically from scientific staff employed in private industry. The distinction during the standstill and severe restraint periods between automatic increments and discretionary merit increases is of general application. Paragraph 26 of the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy after 30th June, 1967 (Cmnd. 3235) indicates the conditions under which after that date managements may return to progressions based on added experience, increased responsibility or special effort.

Mr. Moonman: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I remind him that there is considerable anxiety amongst research staffs in organisations, who feel that there is a somewhat doubtful anomaly existing between them and the Civil Service?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend may be comforted to know that, in one or two establishments, suggestions have been made that they have increments exactly in line with those of the Civil Service and that, when a case has been made, my Ministry has been happy to let those increases go forward.

Industrial Training Board Levy

Mr. Weatherill: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to ensure that all establishments which become liable to pay Industrial Training Board levy are notified of this obligation within six months of liability occurring or, in any event, well before the expiry date of the firms' right to claim grant.

Mr. Hattersley: It is already the practice of each training board to notify establishments in its own industry of their liability to pay levy by the issue of a bulletin or similar publication within a few weeks of the relevant levy order being made and well before the expiry date for claiming grant.

Mr. Weatherill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, certainly in the case of the Engineering Industry Training Board,


a retrospective payment for the levy has already been paid and that, if it goes on in this way, it will cause considerable hardship, especially for smaller companies? Could he not introduce a more equitable system?

Mr. Hattersley: Reverting to the hon. Gentleman's original Question, I am assured that no one under the aegis of the Engineering Industry Training Board has been refused grant because of applying after the expiry date for original applications. The way in which that Board is compounding its levy and grant proposals is intended to produce, and in some way has succeeded in producing, a minimum of inconvenience to its constitutent firms.

Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that local authorities are effectively enforcing the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Fernyhough: I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's Report on the Act for 1965, in which he said that most local and fire authorities had made a substantial effort to enforce the Act but a few had failed to inspect any registered premises or had made only a token effort. The Central Advisory Inspectorate has taken special action to follow up those authorities who had a low rate of inspection and my right hon. Friend hopes that his report for 1966 will show an improvement in the position.

Mr. Archer: Will my hon. Friend agree that, all too often, this becomes just one more job on the shoulders of an overworked public health officer and, further, that if there are a substantial number of local authorities who are not going to enforce the Act, there may be a case for transferring enforcement to a suitably reinforced Factories Inspectorate?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not in a position to comment on the last part of that supplementary question. Where authorities are falling down, we shall use all the influence that we can to get them to come into line with the best of the authorities, who are doing a good job in this respect.

Mr. David Steel: Can the hon. Gentleman say what attempts are being made to enforce the Act within the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am afraid that there are others than myself to whom that question should be addressed.

Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Minister of Labour when he now expects that the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations will publish their report.

Mr. Hattersley: This is a matter for the Royal Commission, but I hope the report may be in the hands of my right hon. Friend by the end of the year.

Mr. Carr: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that information, may I ask whether he and his right hon. Friend realise how many very important matters have been delayed for a long time while we have been waiting for this report? I accept that the timing must be in the hands of the Royal Commission, but will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, when the Government have that report in their hands, they will act upon it with great speed?

Mr. Hattersley: I am aware of the number of outstanding issues which cannot be resolved until the Royal Commission has made its report. I can give the assurance that, once the report is in our hands, whatever action that we deem appropriate will be taken with dispatch. That in no way implies that action which the Royal Commission recommends will be taken by the Government.

Smith's Stamping Works (Coventry) Limited

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed progressive closure of Smith's Stamping Works (Coventry) Limited, with a view to ending production by the end of September, 1967; and, in view of the effect that the projected closure is likely to have on a number of manual workers, many of whom have no other trade than that associated with the stamping and drop-forging industry, what action is being taken to help the workers concerned.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am sorry to delay the House. I have got the Answer with me somewhere.

Dame Irene Ward: Can we help the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Fernyhough: I will help myself in a moment. I could give the Answer off the cuff. It is "Yes"—[Interruption.]—I know what it is, because I have read it before. The Answer is, yes. The employment exchange is making arrangements to ensure that redundant workers are given all possible help to find other suitable work. Retraining will be considered in suitable cases.

Mr. Edelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intention. Will he bear in mind that the closure of these long-established works is likely to be attended by considerable hardship to men of quite unique skill? In these circumstances will he explore, with the firm and also with the Iron and Steel Board, the possibility of keeping the firm in production?

Mr. Fernyhough: We will certainly look into that suggestion, but I could not give any promises beyond that.

Messrs. Rootes, Coventry (Redundant Workers)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the workers at Messrs. Rootes, Coventry, made redundant last December, have since been re-employed by the same firm; and what was the cost to the National Redundancy Fund.

Mr. Fernyhough: Of the 99 workers re-engaged by Rootes, 80 had received redundancy payments at a cost of £18,000 to the Redundancy Fund

Mr. Edelman: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these redundancies, which took place on the eve of the Chrysler take-over, were really necessary and that they were not merely designed to make the situation appear blacker than it was? Does he think it appropriate that the National Redundancy Fund should be used for tactics which have no real relationship to the purposes for which the Fund was established?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am perfectly satisfied that the workers who received redundancy payments were entitled to them under the law as it stands. As to whether the company acted with the fore-

sight it might have shown, I would not like to comment on that.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that if a fixed amount of money is made available by the Government to help redundant workers, that money should properly go to those who have been out of work for a long time and not to those who obtain employment within a few weeks of being dismissed? If he agrees with this view, then the example quoted by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) shows that there is need to amend the Act.

Mr. Fernyhough: I would not agree with that. There was no guarantee that Rootes would ever again employ the men who were declared redundant. They therefore had every right under the Act to these payments. It must be remembered that, having now received redundancy payments, these men start afresh and will have to work for two years before becoming due to entitlement to further redundancy payments. This means that if they become redundant again during this period they will not, unlike other workers who may become redundant at the same time, get benefit.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the fact that some of these workers apparently volunteered to be made redundant in order to get redundancy pay, is there not an obvious and serious anomaly in the Act? When will the Government consider the Act again with the aim of bringing it up to date in regard to need?

Mr. Fernyhough: I would not like to say that the claim made by the hon. Gentleman is true; but if he can supply us with evidence, then that might be a different matter. The fact remains that under the Act as it stands these men qualified for this benefit. I believe, therefore, that they were entitled to it—and rather than be niggardly about it, I am glad that the industry's future prospects seem so much brighter and that it has been able to take on labour which it thought three or four months ago would not be required.

Index of Retail Prices

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied the price index is based upon the basic needs of the people; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hattersley: I am satisfied that the Index of Retail Prices measures changes in the average level of prices of practically all the goods and services purchased by households of wage earners and small and medium salary earners. In order to achieve this, the weighting pattern is derived from the actual expenditures recorded by households co-operating in the continuing Family Expenditure Survey.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that many wage-earners in St. Helens are having to meet a 21 per cent. increase in rents plus an increase in rates? What is the Minister going to do about future wage claims made by these people to help meet these increases? Is he aware that this steep increase in rents represents a cut in the real value of wages?

Mr. Hattersley: I hope to deal with the relationship of rents and the cost of living in a later Answer. In terms of wage movements, they must conform to the Government's prices and incomes policy, which includes a paragraph directed to local authorities urging them to keep rent increases to the minimum, if rents must be increased at all.

Industrial Disputes (Northern Region)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Labour how many working days were lost per 1,000 of the employed population in the northern region due to industrial disputes during 1965 and 1966; and if he will provide a comparison with the Midlands and the South-East.

Mr. Fernyhough: Figures for 1966 will be available in a few weeks' time. In 1965 the number of working days per 1,000 employed persons lost by reason of stoppages of work through industrial disputes was about 90 in the northern region, about 250 in the Midlands, and about 50 in the South-East.

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Would not he agree that it provides a further basis for the Government increasing the movement of industry to the north-east of England?

Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, Sir, and I should have thought that these figures would be an added attraction to industrialists who may have had a bad image

of the North. These figures for the North put the matter in its right perspective.

Appointed Factory Doctor Service (Northern Region)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that the Ministry of Labour Appointed Factory Doctor Service is fully developed to meet the needs of industry in the Northern Region; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fernyhough: A sub-committee of my right hon. Friend's Industrial Health Advisory Committee has recently reviewed the Appointed Factory Doctor Service. The Report of this sub-committee, which was published in April, 1966, is now being considered, together with the comments of interested organisations on it.

Mr. Brown: While thanking my hon. Friend for that information, may I ask him to appreciate that many people in the northern region are far from satisfied with the standard of the doctor services in factories? Will he seek to really expedite action in this matter?

Mr. Fernyhough: We are anxious to see the best possible service being given, but this must be balanced with the National Health Service, otherwise we would be merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. I believe that most hon. Members would agree that we want the best system that we can have without it in any way detracting from the general service made available to the community.

Mr. Scott: When are we likely to have the Government's views on the future of the Appointed Factory Doctor Service as well as on the Youth Employment Service, which is somewhat linked to the former?

Mr. Fernyhough: I cannot at the moment say when those views will be given. Negotiations are going on with the interested parties, but I assure the House that they will not be unnecessarily delayed.

Pollard Bearings Factory, Ferrybridge (Dispute)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in the settlement of the dispute at


Pollard Bearings factory at Ferrybridge, Yorkshire.

Mr. Hattersley: I regret that it has not been possible so far to find a solution to this dispute, despite continuing efforts by our officers over a considerable period.

Mr. Jeger: In view of the fact that conflicting statements about the dispute have been issued by the rather loudmouthed but ineffective union, A.S.S.E.T. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as well as by the reactionary employers, would not my hon. Friend issue a factual statement about the causes of this dispute?

Mr. Hattersley: If my Ministry were asked to issue a factual statement of that kind it would be placed in the invidious position of apportioning blame, which is not the rôle of the Ministry. However, we shall continue, with all the means at our disposal, to bring the dispute to an end.

Mr. A. Royle: In view of the comment of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) about A.S.S.E.T., is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the dispute which is taking place in Roe-hampton at the limb-fitting centre is about to cause a serious strike? What steps is his Ministry taking to deal with that situation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is about Ferrybridge.

Electricians (Wages)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that as from 5th March, 1967, the No. 27 Area Committee of the Electrical Trades Union has raised the rate for electricians by one shilling an hour and for assistants by 9½d. an hour, rises of £2 and £1 3s. 3d. a week, respectively; and if he will refer these rises to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Hattersley: I am aware that a letter asking firms to increase the wages of electricians and assistants has been circulated by the Committee. The agreement in the electrical contracting industry providing for the increases in question has already been considered by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and its views given in Report No. 24 (Cmnd. 3167).

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it right that the No. 27 Area Committee should dish out these letters to large shops in the centre of London, giving the impression that the rates of all electricians are going up by this amount? Is this Committee authorised to take this action?

Mr. Hattersley: The union concerned does not require authorisation from my Ministry to distribute letters of this sort. My Ministry has made it clear that the initial agreement is acceptable under the terms of the prices and incomes policy but that if organisations and firms have some doubt about whether the agreement applies to them, they should find out from our officers whether they are covered by the initial agreement.

Roberts Arundel Factory (Dispute)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the steps being taken by his Department in regard to the official dispute at the Roberts Arundel factory.

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend has had discussions with representatives of the company and of the unions concerned. Following these, a further joint meeting was held in Manchester on 3rd April under the Ministry's chairmanship, but I regret that no progress was made. We shall do all we can to resolve this dispute.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not a fact that all the good efforts of the Minister were flouted by this firm's representative who said that the American parent company had refused him authority to negotiate at all? In these circumstances, would the Minister receive the unions again with a view to considering further steps to get the trade union men back to work and re-engaged?

Mr. Hattersley: Certainly I will see either of the parties again. My only wish is to bring the dispute to an end. If the unions wish to meet my right hon. Friend or representatives of his Ministry, that can certainly be arranged.

Mr. Heffer: Is not this a case where the management's attitude is absolutely outmoded and outdated—

Mr. Allaun: And outrageous?

Mr. Heffer: —and outrageous? Is not this a case where the Government's full support should be given to the unions involved, and should not the Government lean heavily on the side of the unions against the management?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that the dispute will be brought to a speedy conclusion by the Government leaning heavily on either side, irrespective of the merits of the case. The Government have done all they can to make sure that they are in no way a party to the unfortunate features of this dispute. We have insisted that men registering at the employment exchange for work with this firm are notified of the conditions operating there at the moment.

Trade Unions (Membership)

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps, before the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions, to minimise the use of threats to increase union membership.

Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir.

Mr. Bell: Since threats and duress are now being used on a wider scale and in the most oppressive manner, particularly by one union, D.A.T.A., does the Minister not think that it is incumbent upon his right hon. Friend to introduce a Bill to deal with this matter now, or else to make sure that I am given leave later today to introduce mine?

Mr. Hattersley: I think it is incumbent upon my right hon. Friend to adjudge the issue from the objective evidence of the Royal Commission rather than to be swayed by the emotional statements of the hon. and learned Member and one of his right hon. Friends.

Mr. William Hamilton: Has my hon. Friend had any specific representations on this matter from the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), or is this just in the nature of a generalised slur against the trade unions?

Mr. Hattersley: It has been a feature of allegations of this sort that substantiation has been in very short supply.

Mr. R. Carr: While seeing the point of the Minister's statement that he cannot consider legislation in advance of the

Royal Commission, may I ask him whether he would not at least give the authority of his Department, which has always been forthcoming in the past, in condemning the use of threats, wherever they arise, from whatever union, in trying to enforce a closed shop?

Mr. Hattersley: I think the right hon. Gentleman's request for the condemnation of threats is so general that it can obviously be upheld. But, having said that, it does not mean that I endorse the views of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Paget: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are pretty sick of the complaints of people who are more than willing to take advantage of the bargains made by a trade union but are unwilling to pay the expenses? Will he see that union organisation is not impeded?

Mr. Mawby: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is possible nowadays for an employer to make it a condition of employment that the employee must agree to have his union contributions deducted from his salary?

Mr. Hattersley: That could well be a condition of employment but it is not a matter for my Ministry. It is something that individual employers must decide and something about which no comment should be made until the Royal Commission has deliberated about these matters and produced a report.

Unemployment (Aberdeen)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of unemployed, by trades and sexes, at the latest convenient date in the city of Aberdeen, and how those figures compare with those in each of the last five years.

Mr. Fernyhough: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hector Hughes: While I thank my hon. Friend for that promise, may I ask him to say how these figures are affected on the one hand by the number of advance factories promoted by the President of the Board of Trade in Aberdeen and on the other hand by the drift south of skilled craftsmen and women?

Mr. Fernyhough: I should merely have to repeat the figures if I were to provide the information that my hon. and learned Friend is seeking. I can, however, tell

INDUSTRIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBER OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT THE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICE IN ABERDEEN



13th March, 1967
14th March, 1966
8th March, 1965


Industry
Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total


Agriculture and horticulture
64
2
66
64
2
66
118
3
121


Fishing
66
—
66
46
1
47
58
—
58


Bacon curing, meat and fish products
75
42
117
46
28
74
70
42
112


Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
45
—
45
31
—
31
47
1
48


Spinning and doubling of cotton, flax and man-made fibres
26
11
37
14
7
21
26
—
26


Bricks, pottery, glass, cement, etc.
22
1
23
18
4
22
31
—
31


Timber
30
1
31
32
1
33
71
—
71


Construction
233
3
236
125
1
126
271
4
275


Sea transport
85
—
85
73
—
73
93
2
95


Distributive trades
217
95
312
162
117
279
231
186
417


Entertainment and sport
29
6
35
28
4
32
42
17
59


Catering, hotels, etc.
65
40
105
61
32
93
78
70
148


Private domestic service
4
20
24
6
25
31
5
24
29


Local government service
126
13
139
91
14
105
141
16
157


Other industries and services
627
195
822
454
177
631
583
327
910


Total, all Industries and Services
1,714
429
2,143
1,251
413
1,664
1,865
692
2,557

16th March, 1964
11th March, 1963
12th March, 1962


Industry
Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total


Agriculture and horticulture
120
8
128
119
7
126
111
5
116


Fishing
204
—
204
136
—
136
138
—
138


Bacon curing, meat and fish products
80
65
145
111
55
166
77
41
118


Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
51
3
54
328
4
332
128
2
130


Spinning and doubling of cotton, flax and man-made fibres
21
39
60
21
32
53
32
19
51


Bricks, pottery, glass, cement, etc.
50
—
50
121
1
122
59
1
60


Timber
83
—
83
116
3
119
87
—
87


Construction
284
2
286
475
—
475
300
5
305


Sea transport
103
—
103
152
—
152
156
—
156


Distributive trades
272
214
486
363
248
611
291
170
461


Entertainment and sport
57
13
70
64
14
78
56
13
69


Catering, hotels, etc.
109
60
169
132
85
217
113
54
167


Private domestic service
6
36
42
12
33
45
15
30
45


Local government service
143
27
170
187
22
209
153
17
170


Other industries and services
596
368
964
920
333
1,253
846
339
1,185


Total, all Industries and Services
2,179
835
3,014
3,257
837
4,094
2,562
696
3,258

him that the unemployment rate in his constituency is 2·4 per cent, as against a national average of 2·6.

Following is the information:

Manual Workers (Earnings)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour if he will publish in future issues of his Department's Monthly Gazette statistics showing variations in earnings in each industry between England and Wales, and Scotland, respectively.

Mr. Hattersley: The Ministry already publishes information, compiled from our six-monthly enquiries, showing the earnings of men manual workers in Scotland, Wales and the administrative regions of England. Tables published twice each year in the Gazette give details by industry group. Similar information for individual industries is given in the quarterly publication "Statistics on Incomes, Prices, Employment and Production".
Tables showing earnings by occupation in certain industries are also published regularly in the Gazette, and the quarterly publication, for these same areas.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any technical difficulty about providing a table of comparison in the Monthly Gazette rather than in the quarterly information that he has indicated, about which I know?

Mr. Hattersley: There are both technical and financial difficulties. However, I very well understand my hon. Friend's concern and the reasons why he tabled his Question. I will certainly look into the matter and do my best to help him.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman consider putting differential prices as well as differential wages in the Monthly Gazette because certain industries in Scotland, such as electricity and gas, are going ahead at a much faster rate than in the rest of the country?

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question about that I shall do my best to answer it.

Dock Workers (Devlin Report)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the progress made with implementing the recommendations of the Devlin Report relating to decasualisation, the future wage structure and the basic fall-back rate for dockworkers.

Mr. Hattersley: The changes in the National Dock Labour Scheme needed for decasualisation have been agreed by the National Modernisation Committee. The initial licensing of employers under the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, is proceeding, and is expected to be completed within the next three months in the majority of ports. The new pay structure recommended by the 1966 Devlin Report to accompany decasualisation has been accepted by both sides of the industry and endorsed in principle by the Government. The Government has made it clear however that implementation of the pay proposals must be subject to incomes policy, and is conditional upon the industry reaching specific agreement for the elimination of restrictive working practices. Negotiations for this purpose are going ahead in the ports.

Mr. Dickens: On the pay issue, is my hon. Friend aware that the delay in arriving at a settlement is causing deep dissatisfaction in the London docks and also hindering a significant advance in productivity? Will he use his best endeavours to expedite progress by dropping the Government's incomes policy in this respect?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not understand the reference to delay. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that the Government's incomes policy will not be abandoned.

Betting Shop Proprietors (Contracts of Employment Act)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of reported infringements of the Contracts of Employment Act by betting shop proprietors since the Act came into operation.

Mr. Hattersley: None specifically relating to a betting shop proprietor has been reported to the Ministry.

Mr. Dickens: In view of the lack of trade union organisation in this somewhat candy-floss industry, will my hon. Friend take steps to improve the Ministry's supervision of the operation of the Act?

Mr. Hattersley: I will certainly do all I can. If my hon. Friend has evidence of breaches of the Act in this sphere, I should be most grateful if he would give it to my Ministry so that we can take specific and immediate action.

Foreign Firms (Trade Union Recognition)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to secure greater control over foreign firms, particularly regarding their acceptance and recognition of trade unions, before such firms are allowed to operate in Great Britain.

Mr. Hattersley: It has always been our policy to encourage employers to recognise appropriate trade unions, but we do not think it would be reasonable to introduce any legislation on the subject which discriminated between British and foreign firms.

Mr. Allaun: While I welcome firms from abroad, may I ask whether there is any danger that some American and other foreign firms, by trampling on British traditions and trade unions, may cause serious trouble, as has happened with Roberts Arundel at Stockport?

Mr. Hattersley: I think that if my hon. Friend casts his mind back five to eight years he will agree that the serious troubles to which he refers, which stem from refusal to recognise appropriate trade unions, can very often occur in British as well as American companies. I think that any action that we can take after the Royal Commission must be in relation to both native and foreign firms.

Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend consider sending formal information to foreign-controlled firms in this country pointing out the British traditions in regard to trade union work on negotiations and ask them to stop the habit of saying that they have to get instructions from their own country before they can enter into negotiations?

Mr. Hattersley: I can assure my hon. Friend that the President of the Board of Trade makes firms which want to open business in this country very well aware of the traditions and requirements which will be theirs if they do so.

Male Commonwealth Immigrants

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Labour what was the approximate net increase of the labour force by male Commonwealth immigrants in each of the years 1963 to 1966, inclusive.

Mr. Fernyhough: I regret that this information is not available.

Sir D. Renton: Surely this is information which could with some analysis in turn be derived from the figures, is it not? Will the hon. Gentleman not make an attempt to get this information, because it is very important that we should have it?

Mr. Fernyhough: We know how many people come in but some of them bring children with them and they need schooling and later employment and some go back. We do not have those detailed statistics.

Immigrants (Employment Vouchers)

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Labour how many holders of employment vouchers landed in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1963 to 1966, inclusive; how many voucher holders left the country in each of those years; and how many new vouchers it is proposed to issue in 1967.

Mr. Fernyhough: Voucher holders entering the United Kingdom in the years 1963 to 1966 numbered


1963
…
…
…
30,125


1964
…
…
…
14,705


1965
…
…
…
12,880


1966
…
…
…
5,461


No separate records are kept of voucher holders leaving the country.
Vouchers are currently being issued at a rate of 8,500 per annum.

Sir D. Renton: In view of the present amount of unemployment in this country, and in view of the fact that many of the people who will have these vouchers have skills which are more needed in their own countries, is there really a need to issue 8,500 vouchers?

Mr. Fernyhough: The vouchers are issued in category A only to people who have a job to come to and in Category B to people who have special skills. I will not quarrel with the argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman advances about the need for some of these skills in the countries from which the immigrants come.

Coloured Workers (Employment Statistics)

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will change his


policy regarding the compilation of official statistics on the employment of coloured workers in the light of the evidence produced at the recent conference on racial equality in employment held by the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, details of which have been sent to him.

Mr. Fernyhough: No. The position remains as I explained to the hon. Member on 20th February. —[Vol. 741, c. 1125.]

Mr. Marquand: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the conference on racial equality in employment it became abundantly clear that American experience shows that one cannot effectively deal with the problem of racial discrimination in employment if one has not the statistical basis to know what is happening? Could he, therefore, make some advance in this field?

Mr. Fernyhough: There is no argument between the Government and my hon. Friend about aims. The only argument is about the means. It is a question of judgment. I can, however, tell my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary will be looking at the matter again. That is as far as I can go at present.

Retail Drapery Employees (Wages)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has reached a decision on the National Board for Prices and Incomes' report No. 27 as to whether or not to forbid the increase in pay recommended by the Drapery Wages Council.

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend hopes to complete his examination of these questions and to announce his decision on the retail drapery proposals very shortly.

Mr. Higgins: What criteria are used in deciding whether or not to accept recommendations of the Board?

Mr. Hattersley: The criteria of the Government's prices and incomes policy.

Mr. R. Carr: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that his right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House about this subject when he has made his decision? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this raises very serious

considerations about the constitutional position of the wages councils?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the obligation is to notify the parties, but I will make sure the House is notified simultaneously.

Wages Councils (Lower Paid Workers)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Labour whether he intends to introduce legislation to remove the statutory duties of wages councils to protect lower paid workers, in view of the conflict with prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot yet add to my reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 20th March. —[Vol. 743, c. 182–3.]

Mr. Higgins: Shall we have a satisfactory definition of what is meant by the "lowest-paid worker"?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman will recall the very many evenings we have spent in the House discussing the Government's policy and it is not the Government's policy to give a general definition of the "lowest-paid workers", but to recognise and diagnose them as they come before us under the prices and incomes policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — "TORREY CANYON" (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS)

Sir J. Hobson: asked the Attorney-General (1) in what country it is intended by Her Majesty's Government that the Treasury Solicitor shall institute proceedings against the owners of the "Torrey Canyon";

(2) whether the proceedings to be instituted by the Treasury Solicitor against the owners of the "Torrey Canyon" will be for and on behalf of the Crown only, or whether they will be for or on behalf of any other persons and authorities; and who those will be.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): Investigations are continuing as to the venue most appropriate for bringing proceedings. In addition to this country, the United States, Bermuda, and Liberia are being considered. It is intended that the action will be brought


on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. If other actions are brought, whether by other public authorities or by private individuals, the Government will consider whether it will be possible for such actions to be consolidated with their own.

Sir J. Hobson: Is the learned Attorney-General saying that the Government have threatened proceedings without knowing where they can be brought? Is not the position that the only possibility of bringing proceedings in this country is if the only other ship of the owners comes within our territorial waters? Otherwise are not California and Bermuda the only countries in which we can sue?

The Attorney-General: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are complex problems of jurisdiction, liability and damages arising out of this disaster. The Treasury Solicitor is in communication with the solicitors acting for the owners, and proceedings will be brought where it would seem that the most satisfactory result can be obtained.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that if he applies the same skill to the other unprecedented problems arising from this wreck as he did to the earlier problems, he will earn the thanks of hundreds of hotel keepers and residents along the south coast?

The Attorney-General: I hope that potential defendants will take due note of that tribute.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the Attorney-General not recollect that the Prime Minister said, as reported in column 54 of HANSARD, that we had
slapped in our writ right away"?
Where was that done?

The Attorney-General: I did hear that elegant phrase from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I noticed that when he addressed it to the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) he said:
To use a phrase which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably fault, we have slapped in our writ right away…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 54.]
Obviously that observation has been faulted. Perhaps I should add that the proper steps are being taken with the shipowners' solicitors.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS (LEGAL AID)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to make legal aid available for tenants appearing before rent tribunals.

The Attorney-General: It is doubtful whether there is any need for legal aid before rent tribunals, which have operated satisfactorily without it for many years. In any event, financial circumstances make the extension of legal aid to administrative tribunals, such as rent tribunals, and rent assessment committees, impracticable at the present time.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. and learned Friend recollect, with regard to the establishment of rent assessment committees, that both he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government have said that they are looking into this problem, because hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that tenants are being put in an unfair situation? The Act, which was designed to help tenants, is not doing so. What is worse, many people think that the Act of Parliament has been drafted and biased against them as tenants when the idea was to help them.

The Attorney-General: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the Rent Act that was passed by this Administration has not been helpful to tenants. On the contrary, it has been of immense value to them and has given them protection which did not previously exist. The real need in regard to rent assessment tribunals would seem to be in the field of expert assistance, and the appropriate surveyors' societies are now, in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, looking into this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Lipton: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that it is a bit late in the day to start negotiating with the surveyor's organisations? Is he not further aware that many tenants feel that the dice are loaded against them and, for that reason, they are afraid to go to the assessment committees?

The Attorney-General: I have no evidence of such fear. The rent assessment committees have been considerably


used and are producing very good results from the tenants' point of view.

Oral Answers to Questions — LANDS TRIBUNAL (APPEALS)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Attorney-General if he will seek powers to relieve property owners of meeting the cost of referring an appeal to the Lands Tribunal, under the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, and the Land Compensation Act, 1961, for determination.

The Attorney-General: I do not think there is a case for affording property owners further assistance towards meeting these costs than they receive under the existing law and practice, whereby a successful appellant is normally awarded costs.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not aware that many of the owner-occupiers who lose their properties under compulsory purchase orders very often lose several hundreds of pounds or more on the properties which they are buying since the compensation paid is far less than the money which they are left owing and still have to pay? Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider his reply and do what he can to help these most unfortunate people whose only hope is to win an appeal?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend's Question was directed to the question of costs. As I said, I do not think that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case that he would like to draw to my attention, I will very willingly look at it.

ADEN

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to take this, the first, opportunity open to me to make a statement on the withdrawal of the United Nations Mission to South Arabia.
Her Majesty's Government deeply regret that the United Nations Mission should have broken off its work after only five days in Aden. This is a grave setback to the widespread hopes that the United Nations would be able to

make a constructive contribution to the achievement of peaceful independence for South Arabia.
When news of the United Nations Mission's withdrawal reached me on Friday morning I immediately invited it to come to London to discuss fully and personally its complaints and its future course of action. I had hoped that the Mission would have accepted this invitation in time for me to report the results of my talks with it to the House today. I do not wish to prejudge the discussion I may still have with it. Nevertheless, I owe it to the House and to our Service men and civilians who are serving under such difficulties in South Arabia to reply to the public statements that the Mission has made attributing its decision to withdraw to failure on the part of Britain.
The Mission has made two main complaints, one general and one particular. The first, that there was a failure on the part of the British authorities in South Arabia to co-operate with it. The second related to the suppression of a radio and television appeal for co-operation which it wished to make on Thursday evening.
I am, frankly, puzzled by this complaint of non-co-operation, since from the moment we accepted the Mission Her Majesty's Government have done everything in their power to ensure its success. After making the fullest inquiries open to me of those who were on the spot, it appears to me that our authorities in Aden did everything possible to facilitate the Mission's work despite the appalling dislocation caused by the worst floods in living memory followed by a general strike and severe outbreaks of violence and terrorism.
At this point, the House would wish me, I am sure, to pay tribute to the immense skill, restraint and patience shown by the High Commissioner and his staff and by our Forces in tackling in one week the tasks of rescuing the civil population from a flood disaster and then turning to the suppression of terrorism with the minimum loss of life.
I can sympathise with the Mission at the frustration it felt as a result of the security measures that had to be taken for its own safety. After all, the strike and call for intensified violence were specifically directed against the Mission's work and compelled us to ensure


the safety of the lives of the members of the Mission.
We repeatedly urged all political groups in South Arabia to co-operate with the Mission. During its visits to Cairo and to the detainees in Aden the Mission was unable to persuade the Front for the Liberation of South Yemen and the National Liberation Front to abandon their boycott and their terrorism. There were, however, persons in Aden who defied the threats against anyone cooperating with the Mission and asked to see it, but the Mission did not receive them.
This brings me to the second complaint, the failure of the South Arabian radio and television to broadcast a statement by the Mission at the times arranged. The television and radio stations in Aden are legally and physically in the hands of and under the control of the Federal Government. At the request of the United Nations Mission arrangements were made for the broadcast, but it had to be pre-recorded, since both the television and radio stations are terrorist targets and a live broadcast at night was impossible.
Recording took place on Thursday afternoon. When the Federal authorities later studied the text they took particular exception to a reference to the Mission's refusal to deal with the Federal Government. They took the view that they would not allow their legality to be questioned on their own broadcasting system. In our view, a very few changes in the script could have made the text acceptable to all concerned.
In the early hours of Friday morning I instructed the High Commissioner to ask the Mission to discuss certain amendments, but the Mission maintained its determination to leave by the first plane that morning. In my view, the matter could have been settled if the Mission had been willing to wait and talk.
The present situation in Aden is that the strike has been called off. There has been a marked falling off in the number of grenade incidents although two local nationals have been shot dead in circumstances which suggest that each terrorist party is seeking to eliminate its terrorist rivals.
As to the future, the twin aims of the Government's policy will continue to be the orderly withdrawal of our military forces and the establishment of an independent South Arabia at the earliest possible date.
As I told the House on 20th March, the Federal Government are considering the proposals which I put before them relating to the attainment of independence. I am, of course, in touch with them about this.
I hope shortly to be in a position to report further to the House on this, and I will certainly do so.
Perhaps we may discuss, through the usual channels, the question of the timing of a debate, if that is the wish of the House.
With the withdrawal of the United Nations Mission the problems associated with the future of South Arabia have taken on political proportions that go beyond the normal task of administering a Colony and producing constitutional progress towards independence. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has agreed that my noble friend the Minister without Portfolio should go to Aden. The functions of the High Commissioner, the Commander-in-Chief and the local security commander will not be altered, but Lord Shackleton, of course, carries the full authority of a Minister of the Crown. He will report to me. In this way, those in Aden and the Government here will benefit by having high level political guidance on the spot.
The High Commissioner has told me that he is looking forward to working with my noble Friend and I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing him every success in the mission on which he is now embarking.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The House will be grateful to the Foreign Secretary for having given us this statement at the earliest possible moment. It is, I think, a totally discreditable and petulant performance of this particular Committee of Three of the United Nations.
The whole House will wish to join in the tribute which the Foreign Secretary has paid to the High Commissioner and his staff and to the commander and to the troops in Aden, who have had to act


under an almost intolerable strain and have done so with their usual good temper and efficiency.
There is one question I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary about the members of the Mission. Did they say to him, before they left London, that they would be willing to talk with the Federal authorities? 
There is now a very dangerous situation in Aden. There is, as far as we can make out, a complete absence of Government policy. We shall want to know what the instructions are that have been given to Lord Shackleton.
Because this is a matter of such urgency I shall, Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate moment, ask leave to adjourn the House to debate it.

Mr. Brown: I have, I trust, already made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that if we are concerned with the future of South Arabia there are certain things which it would be wise to wait for so that we can take them into account; and it would not be possible, of course, to do that today.
As to the question of the Federal authorities, yes, we discussed this when the Mission was in London. The Mission made it quite clear that the United Nations resolutions, in its view, inhibited the Mission from recognising the Federal authorities as the Government. That is the situation. The Mission agreed with me that it would see them, and we agreed that ways and means would be found to overcome the problem. I regret that that did not happen.
As to the question of Government policy, I shall be very happy to discuss that whenever the debate arises.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who are anxious to uphold the Charter of the United Nations will greatly deplore the non-judicial manner in which this delegation has gone about its work? I should like to ask two questions. First, will the right hon. Gentleman be careful not to attach too much weight to the advice given him by those who have been responsible for creating four Commonwealth federations which now lie in ruins? Secondly, is he aware that the heart of the problem stems from the artificiality of the present Federation, that

it is only a matter of time before that Federation breaks up, and that it is better that it should do so as a result of a political decision by this Government before independence rather than after terrorism, six months after independence?

Mr. Brown: On the question of the delegation, I think that I have set out the situation as far as I have been able to discover it from talking to people who were there at the time. I want to talk to the delegation itself before I go any further. I do not think that I shall do a lot of good at this moment—when the delegation is still discussing whether to come and see me—by further animadverting upon them.
On the question of giving too much weight to the advice given me by the other side, their responsibility is clearly such that the right hon. Gentleman may take it for granted that there is not the slightest chance of my making that mistake.
On the question of the artificiality of the present Federation, since I am at this moment in consultation with the present Federal Government and others about the kind of constitution and the kind of Government there should be in this area—and that is why I think that a debate could more conveniently and constructively come a little later—it would be better if I did not comment further on that point.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? First, will he endeavour to find out who launched the lying rumours which were deliberately designed to make the United Nations Mission appear ridiculous and anti-British—for which there was no foundation whatever? Secondly, in view of the disastrous failure of parts of the policies produced by the late Conservative Government, will my right hon. Friend now make a completely new appraisal of the situation, including consultations with the leaders of all parties in Aden, including Asnag?

Mr. Brown: On the question of anti-British statements, there is no doubt from what I have been able to establish—ahead of seeing the Mission and hearing its side of the story—that a lot of things were said during the course of heated exchanges which I doubt those who said them would really want to stay with


now. I have established that not all the blame, by a long manner of means, rested with the Mission for the shambles which the Press meetings became.
We have made a fresh appraisal. We are in consultation with all the authorities in Aden. We are trying very hard to get into consultation with the parties who are not in Aden, and Asnag is one of those.

Mr. Dickens: May I ask the Foreign Secretary two questions? First, will he give the House a categorical assurance that we shall be out of Aden by 1968, with no continuing defence commitment thereafter? Secondly, is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House—notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's white-washing exercise this afternoon—are very concerned about the anti-United Nations, anti-Labour Government attitude taken up by certain officials of the British High Commissioner's Office, and in the Army?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Brown: I did not hear the last few words correctly. Perhaps it is well that I did not. If the suggestion is that I am engaged on any white-washing exercise, I certainly repudiate that.
On the question of the date for independence and the date for our withdrawal, as my hon. Friend knows, we have already pronounced upon those. Again, those are the very matters I am currently negotiating, as it were, and consulting upon with the Federal Government. I would prefer not to make any further statement at the moment.

Mr. Heath: As the right hon. Gentleman has rightly paid tribute to the High Commission and all those in Aden, surely he will repudiate the remarks of his hon. Friend, accusing them of having biased the whole project of the Mission.
Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what are the terms of reference or the instructions given to the Minister without Portfolio for his mission to Aden? He has stated that he has sent the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio there to be able to give political advice—but political advice for what purpose? To what end is the right hon. Gentleman's mission to be devoted?

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend will be there to give political guidance on our behalf—my behalf—directly and easily to those who have responsibility there. He will be able to ease the burden on those who carry out a lot of executive functions by taking a great deal of political work on to his shoulders.
I am persuaded by those who have recently come back and have been talking to me—officials in the Department and from elsewhere—that our administrators and commanders out there are very heavily stretched indeed. It would be helpful if a senior Minister with a good deal of not only political but administrative experience were there to help on that. It will also improve communications with the Government here and the ability to get guidance from here and to get information to us as to what is happening. It is very clear that the High Commission and the commanders there see these advantages, and will welcome them.
That is the work that my right hon. Friend, Lord Shackleton, will do initially. He will also be available to them in consultations about measures relating to the attainment of independence and about the new constitutional arrangements which we shall have to make and which we had hoped would be discussed with the United Nations Mission. He will obviously be of enormous value to them when that goes on, and he will be able to come back here and give us very valuable advice.

Mr. Bellenger: Has my right hon. Friend assumed that the Mission is a fact-finding Mission and will, presumably, report back to the United Nations? If he thinks that that is the case, does not he think that he should make representations to the United Nations Secretariat to change the personnel of its Mission, so that we can get at the facts and not get a biased and prejudiced report?

Mr. Brown: I say seriously to the House that I do not think that it would help if I made comments derogatory to the Mission—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For a reason that I know the Opposition find it difficult to accept: the United Nations exists. For many of us it remains the major hope of peace in the world. We can try to clear up what


went wrong on this occasion, but we will not help at all by increasing the degree of feeling.
The Mission would be a fact-finding mission. It is to make a report to the United Nations—to the sub-committees or the Assembly itself. Many months were lost while we sought to arrange membership which would be acceptable to the United Nations and everybody else. I do not think that I will help very much by going back on that, and I ask the House seriously—if hon. Members are more concerned with South Arabia than with politics in this House—to remember that I am still trying to get the Mission to come and see me. It will still have a real rôle to play. In any case, the United Nations has.

Mr. Tapsell: Does not the Foreign Secretary, who, I recognise, has his heart in the right place where matters affecting the honour of this country are concerned, appreciate that the point has now been reached where, following our long and historic connection with Aden and Southern Arabia, we should tell the world that this is a British responsibility which we intend to discharge without foreign interference and that we have a moral responsibility to maintain our forces in the area until we can guarantee stable self-government for the people there?

Mr. Brown: That kind of speech—I recognise the kindness with which the hon. Gentleman opened it—has been made again and again about places all over the world by hon. Members opposite and the situations have almost invariably ended up in total disaster.

Mr. Winnick: In the consultations which are taking place now, what plans are there for Aden itself to leave the Federation? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there can never be any form of peace until Aden is allowed out of the Federation?

Mr. Brown: It is not a question of allowing Aden out of the Federation. That point does not arise. Some of the main Ministers, some of the most active and responsible Ministers in this Government, are Adenis: they are themselves Arab nationalists. They are not asking to opt out. I beg my hon. Friend to

recognise that what we have to find for an independent South Arabia, which I hope to help to bring about in the shortest possible time, is a constitution and a widened Government which will allow them all to play their part.

Mr. Sandys: Now that the Government's policy has totally collapsed, will the Foreign Secretary now at last stop running after Nasser and his hired assassins—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as the Secretary of State for Defence has described them—and now try to work out a sensible policy in consultation with the Federal Government, who are the legal Government of South Arabia and who have behaved with loyalty and cooperation—

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman is the architect of the bloodshed.

Mr. Sandys: —and in consultation with the Government of Saudi Arabia, who have a vital interest in the stability of this area?

Mr. Brown: The brazenness of the right hon. Gentleman ceases to astonish me. He must have the skin of a rhinoceros to go on as he is going on, knowing full well that he is the architect of the mess we are in. If the right hon. Gentleman spent a little less time writing statements—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] —and a little more time listening and reading, he would know—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must answer in his own way.

Mr. Brown: —that all the things he asked for in the last part of his supplementary question are, in fact, now being done.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration that many of the points made by hon. Members opposite are concerned with their own battle for leadership and control of the Tory Party? Because hon. Members opposite have a inherent distaste and dislike for the whole concept of the United Nations, will my right hon. Friend, while disregarding the contributions they have to make, consider some of the sensible propositions made from this side of the House, such as the one I now make—that, if Aden were under the control of the United Nations


and taken out of the Federation, that might be a sensible start towards preventing the bloodshed and getting on to a reasonable course?

Mr. Brown: While I am engaged in the present consultations and the present proposals are under consideration, I obviously cannot, either during question and answer exchanges or at any other time, go into every possible means of solution. I have not given up hope that we shall get a constitutional arrangement worked out which will meet the wishes of everybody concerned.
As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, like him, I am surprised at the masochism which would lead anybody to want to lead the Tory Party.

Viscount Lambton: The Foreign Secretary said that it is the Government's intention to leave Aden at the earliest possible date. Does he still say that this date must be 1968, or could it be later?

Mr. Brown: It was the Tory Government who said that independence would be in 1968.

Mr. Sandys: With a defence agreement.

Mr. Brown: It was the Tory Government—we will go into this in the debate, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes it—who so messed and muddled all that up with different advices and different written records that the thing was left in the mess it is. It is not my intention to do other than to help South Arabia to get to independence, to get protection as an independent nation in the world, and to withdraw our own troops at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Strauss: Following on a previous supplementary question, is my right hon. Friend aware that all the members of an all-party delegation that recently went to Aden were deeply impressed by the balanced judgment and outstanding ability of Sir Richard Turnbull, the High Commissioner?

Mr. Brown: When I paid tribute to Sir Richard in my statement, I seriously meant it. Sir Richard was over here recently. He has been over twice and has had very long discussions with me. I, too, am impressed with his balanced judgment. I am also very impressed

with the strain he has been under now for, I think, about 20 months, without any leave, and there having been a very large number of attacks on his life. I am very anxious to give him all the help I can from here on. That is one of the reasons for Lord Shackleton's going out.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the Foreign Secretary now reply to the second part of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in which my right hon. Friend was concerned that the Foreign Secretary should protect the High Commissioner from the imputations of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens)?

Mr. Brown: I may not have done it in the way that the hon. and gallant Member would have liked me to have done it, but I did, in fact, do it.

Sir G. de Freitas: To remove some of the confusion and to help Lord Shackleton, will my right hon. Friend consider changing the title of the senior British official there, which is at present "High Commissioner", to something which indicates quite clearly that he has important administrative duties as well as diplomatic ones?

Mr. Brown: I would not have thought that it was really important to go into that at this stage of the proceedings, although I must say that I was very surprised, when I arrived at the Foreign Office, to find that I had a High Commissioner at my disposal.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising out of the Foreign Secretary's reply to the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), is it not essential, if the United Nations is to function effectively, that its Mission should command confidence? In view of the observation made by members of the Mission about this country, and their contemptuous treatment of the Federal Ministers, is it not clear that until they are replaced the United Nations will not be able to play any part in the solution of these problems?

Mr. Brown: I note the right hon. Gentleman's views. I repeat that I do not think that it would help if I were to comment on that.

Mr. Colin Jackson: Has my right hon. Friend been in consultation with the United States and the Soviet Union, in


view of the danger of those two Powers being drawn into this quarrel through the Yemen and Saudi Arabia? In looking at the future of South Arabia, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever solution may be reached, we must all recognise the deep difference between the character of the people in the port of Aden and those of the hinterland?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I certainly recognise the difference to which my hon. Friend refers. It is not for me at this stage, I think, to say whether I would have proceeded in the way things were proceeded with a little while ago. We have to deal with things as they now are and try to get constitutional arrangements out of this situation.
As to consultation with the United States and the Soviet Union, I have enough trouble at the moment consulting all those who are actually parties to this problem without adding more to it. The United Nations would seem to be the place to discuss the matter with other countries.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the Foreign Secretary going back on the proud boast of the post-war Socialist Government that membership of the Commonwealth carried with it mutual defence against external aggression?

Mr. Brown: I am not going back on any Socialist claim at all. I am having an awful job trying to save this country from the cost of living up to the boasts of right hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this extremely difficult situation there will be widespread support in the House and in the country for the fair and objective attitude he adopted today in assessing the situation and that, as he is trying to keep in touch and is inviting the Mission to London, he ought to be fully supported? This is not the time for inquests, but the time to support my right hon. Friend.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the dangerous situation confronting the Government in Aden as a result of the withdrawal of the United Nations Mission, and the urgent

need for the House to debate a statement of Government policy before the departure of the Minister without Portfolio for Aden.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the dangerous situation confronting the Government in Aden as a result of the withdrawal of the United Nations Mission, and the urgent need for the House to debate a statement of Government policy before the departure of the Minister without Portfolio for Aden.
Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), until Seven o'clock this evening.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should remind the House that, under the Sessional Order relating to morning sittings, the debate on this Motion will last from 7 o'clock till 9.30 tonight, being interrupted at 9.30, and that any time lost by the proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment under Standing Order 9 will be made up after 9.30.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we take it from that that you have granted leave for the Motion to be debated?

Mr. Speaker: I must enlighten the right hon. Gentleman. The traditional way in which Mr. Speaker indicates that he has accepted the view of the Member who seeks to raise a matter under Standing Order No. 9 is to ask whether the hon. or right hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House. If there is no objection by any hon. Member, it is taken that leave is granted. If there is objection, then the rising of more than 40 Members in their places means that the Speaker's decision under Standing Order No. 9 has been confirmed by the House. I hope that that is clear to the Leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Lipton: May I ask a question arising out of your remark, Mr. Speaker, that the time lost to the debate on the "Torrey Canyon" will be made up after 9.30? Does that mean that the debate on the "Torrey Canyon" will continue for 2½ hours after 9.30?

Mr. Speaker: I have not done the arithmetic of it yet. Obviously, the time which we have spent in question and answer from 3.30 till 4.5 p.m. is time which we cannot give back to the "Torrey Canyon" debate.
I can now tell the House that the debate on the "Torrey Canyon" will be concluded at midnight.

"TORREY CANYON"

4.4 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Perhaps I may begin again, Mr. Speaker.
I beg to move,
That this House approves the White Paper on the "Torrey Canyon" (Command Paper No. 3246), endorses the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government and resolves to refer to the Select Committee on Science and Technology the question of future measures against the pollution of our shores in the light of the experience gained from the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon".
This debate is taking place in circumstances of somewhat lesser tension than might have been expected 10 days ago. This is, no doubt, partly due to the success, not yet complete—for they could not have been so; but substantial success—of our operations of prevention and cure. Much more, however, it is due to the change of attitude on the part of the Opposition. This has not occurred because of a change of policy on the part of the Government. Had the Opposition urged us to take a particular course, and had we then taken it, following their advice, it would have been perfectly reasonable for them to change their attitude. But this is not at all what happened.
During the difficult days of decision, not a word of advice emerged from the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) was, I believe, recovering from his exertions at the Icelandic Press ball and elsewhere, and, no doubt, other right hon. Gentlemen were equally preoccupied. But, whatever the reasons, not a word emerged from them not merely until we had taken the decision to fire the ship but until the first part of that hazardous operation had been carried out and had proved a substantial success. Then the right hon. Member for Bexley, pontificating with the courage of hindsight, asked why we had been waiting, why we had not done it before. Speaking, as I think he described himself on television, as a seaside man himself, he wondered what we had been waiting for.
At first, the right hon. Gentleman was alone among right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but not for long. On the Friday evening, 31st March, 10 days ago, three other right hon. Gentlemen joined in. Their handouts from Conservative Central Office bore all the marks of a concerted campaign. What did they say? First, we had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), whom I am glad to see here. He said:
To be told that you have to wait 11 days to learn that a loaded oil tanker could be set on fire by bombing is an insult to the intelligence of any child".
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's children did take this view. To be honest, I must confess that one of my children took it. But it certainly was not an insult to the intelligence of scientists and oil experts, both governmental and outside, and I shall later describe how they regarded it as an extremely complex problem with a highly doubtful outcome.
Then we had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), whom I am sorry not to see here—

Mr. Peter Emery: Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton) rose—

Mr. Jenkins: Not at the moment; perhaps later.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said:
The handling by the Government of the 'Torrey Canyon' affair was absolutely characteristic".
From the tone of his subsequent remarks, I do not think that this was intended as a compliment, though I may be misjudging the right hon. Gentleman. But it now looks like a rather glowing tribute. Certainly, if we can handle any equally difficult and unprecedented situations which may develop in the future and emerge with not merely as little criticism, but with praise, such as was expressed by Cornish Members when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his statement last week, and with the same position in the House of Lords when the statement was made and in the debate on Thursday—and with the Opposition's apparent intention to endorse the White Paper—we shall not be doing badly.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bexley is leaving us. He has not

been notable for consistency of attention throughout this matter. I hope that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames stands by the tribute he paid to the Government 10 days ago.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bexley has gone, because I gave him notice that I wanted to refer to him in the opening part of my speech. The handling of the "Torrey Canyon" affair by the Opposition has been absolutely characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman's leadership. We have had that combination of rashness and indecision, that eagerness to wound but failure to strike, that inability to distinguish between what is and what is not a legitimate party issue, of first deploying and then having to withdraw forces—we may well ask why no right hon. Gentleman from the Front Bench who uttered a word two weeks ago is allowed to speak in this debate, characteristics which are now only to familiar, not only to this side of the House but to the opposite side as well.

Mr. Emery: The right hon. Gentleman tries to suggest that nobody passed criticism about the firing of the ship until it had been done, but that is not true. All Members from the South-West who met his right hon. and hon. colleagues urged that course much earlier. I myself made that abundantly clear to one of his right hon. colleagues.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) misheard me. I said, "No right hon. Gentleman from the Front Bench", and although we are glad to see the hon. Gentleman back in the House he is not yet a right hon. Gentleman, and he is not yet back on the Front Bench. However, I have now finished with the political background, though we heard a great deal of the political background during the week when things seemed to be going with difficulty.
I want to deal with three main topics, on each of which, I think, the House would like to hear more from the Government: first, developments in dealing with the oil at sea and on the coasts since the publication of the White Paper on 4th April; secondly, lest there be still some misunderstanding about this, the timing of the action taken by the Government; and, thirdly—the House may well agree that this is now the most important—the action the Government are


taking to guard against similar threats in the future.
First, I shall deal with events since the publication of the White Paper, which indicated that the scale of damage still in prospect should be less daunting than was at one time feared. I am glad to be able to report that that remains true. It would be foolish to try to assert exactly what tides or winds will do in the future, but our best assessment now is that there will be no further widespread pollution.
The Plymouth headquarters continues to report that there is no oil on the Devon beaches. Local authorities all along the south coast have rightly made plans for dealing with the oil if, against expectations, it should reach them. Detergent stocks are available in all counties, and local authorities will be warned at once if a threat of pollution to their beaches should again develop.
But the threat has so far diminished that the Government have been able to advise local authorities that, with a few special exceptions, no booms need now be constructed east of Lyme Regis. The limitations of booms have been demonstrated by the weather of the past few days, but I am sure that we were right to give them a trial. It was a situation in which we had to improvise without being certain what the results would be, and we should have been wrong not to attempt measures which gave no guarantee of success. If we had not attempted them we would rightly have been criticised.
In Cornwall, men and machines are at work to clear the dozen beaches at present seriously affected by oil. Units of the Armed Forces sent to assist the Cornish authorities are still at work, and they were joined recently by a contingent from the 3rd United States Air Force. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will describe in more detail later tonight—perhaps a great deal later now, I fear—where and how the work is proceeding, the methods being used, the further experiments being made, and the success achieved so far. The efforts of the local authorities, supported by the Armed Forces, the fire services, local volunteers and many other persons—not least by my right hon. Friend the Minister of

Housing and Local Government—have achieved a magnificent success in cleansing and preserving the Cornish beaches.
Many formidable problems still remain. Some of both the untreated and emulsified oil has penetrated deeply into the treated beaches, especially those of shingle, and the oil may be thrown up by subsequent tidal action unless measures are taken to turn the top layer over and allow the tide to wash the emulsion away.
Another difficulty is removing oil from inaccessible rocky parts of the coast: the oil tends to adhere very strongly to the rock surface and detergent is often difficult to apply. It seems possible that in some cases part of the oil may be washed off by the tide and recontaminate other beaches; alternatively the oil may harden and leave the rocks stained for a very long time. Methods to overcome these difficulties and to provide effective treatment of contaminated mud flats and saltings are still being actively investigated.
Reports on the success of dealing with the oil at sea continue to be encouraging. At the beginning of last week two major oil slicks remained, both about five miles in diameter. The first lay between the Lizard and the Scilly Isles, the second north-west of Guernsey. Royal Navy ships continue to spray these patches and in the first days of the week the slicks were much reduced in diameter and showed signs of breaking up. By Thursday, they had been totally dispersed.
There then appeared to be no oil at sea thick enough to require continued spraying by detergent, and all such operations, which began quickly on the day the tanker went aground, and at one time involved over 50 ships, ceased on that day. In the unlikely event of an oil slick again threatening the coast the Royal Navy would again be able to deploy forces at very short notice.
The tanker lies broken on the Seven Stones. Rough weather and the dangers of the reef, together with other hazards like unexploded bombs, have so far made detailed inspection by divers impossible. Plans, however, are ready for an inspection to be made as soon as conditions permit. But reports from aerial reconnaissance show that all the oil tanks are breached and empty. Slight seepage of oil from the tanker continued for a time—and


there were some exaggerated reports on this—but the amount was very small, and it now seems to have stopped. It appeared to be fuel and not crude oil, and was no more than would be expected from the total wreck of any oil-fuelled vessel.
As we explained in the White Paper, local headquarters, each under a Minister, have been operating from Plymouth, Portsmouth and Folkestone. The Plymouth headquarters continues in working operation, but with the removal of the threat of further gross pollution of any beach, there is no longer a requirement for a Minister to remain at the three headquarters. These, however, are primarily matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has been in charge of the whole of the south coast, and who spent the critical days of the emergency at Plymouth.
Finally, in this first section I would like to give the latest position about marine life and wild life. The advice on which we acted was that neither the fish, nor the fishing grounds, in the deep sea would be affected by the oil or detergent. Events have so far fully borne this out. A research trawler belonging to the Marine Biological Association has, in association with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, been fishing in the affected areas round the Seven Stones reef, near Wolf Rock and in Mounts Bay, and the fish caught have been examined in the laboratory for signs of damage and possible health hazards if eaten.
None has been found, and the fish are untainted and apparently as plentiful as ever. As the White Paper explained however, care was taken to avoid methods of coagulation which could carry oil to the sea-bed.
Close in shore, where it was thought that shellfish might be affected, only very few crabs and other shore-haunting fish have been found dead. This was in areas heavily polluted with oil where substantial quantities of detergent have been used. This is being kept under close review by experts reporting to the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, and local authorities have been asked to restrict such detergent operations wherever feasible.
Among wild birds, both native and migratory, there have, unfortunately, been a lot of casualties. But great efforts to treat birds affected by oil have been made by all the organisations to whom reference is made in paragraph 33 of the White Paper, assisted in many cases by voluntary workers. Action is now being concentrated on rescue operations and on prevention of further pollution of estuaries. The R.S.P.C.A. is coordinating the operations, and the Nature Conservancy has been in close touch with the three Ministerial headquarters and local authorities about preventive measures, especially for Nature reserves. About 7,000 birds have been brought to cleansing centres set up by the R.S.P.C.A. and treated for oil pollution. Money for these operations is being made available through the "Torrey Canyon" Special Fund of the World Wildlife Fund.
I now turn to my second main point, the timing of the action taken by the Government. As the White Paper makes clear, we had from the beginning three broad courses open to us. The first was to try to pump the oil into other vessels. Had this been possible, it would have been the most satisfactory course of the three. It would have offered the best safeguard against pollution of the coast—which was throughout the Government's overriding consideration.
But it was not practicable. Why? First, because the tanker's pumps were completely out of action and there was no possibility of repairing them. The alternative method was to get a vessel alongside and to pump the oil out into shallow draught coastal tankers, which could have stood a little further off. But this would have needed calm weather, and a very prolonged period of calm weather, for we could not have proceeded at a rate anything like normal since the "Torrey Canyon's" pumps were not working. To dispose of the 90,000 tons which remained after the impact would, therefore, have taken many weeks, even several months.
Even in calm weather this would have been a hazardous as well as a long drawn-out process. A spark from the pumping apparatus could have caused another explosion, similar but more extensive than that which killed the captain of the salvage team on 21st March.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's case that the explosion which did occur was the result of the accumulation of gas, or that it was the result of the compressors working on the tanker's deck?

Mr. Jenkins: My evidence is not related to a detailed analysis of the explosion which occurred. It arises from the completely unanimous advice that any pumping operation would have been extremely dangerous. The nature of the danger associated with work on or near the ship was shown by the explosion which did take place, with fatal results.
To have attempted such a pumping operation in the boisterous weather which prevailed would have been not merely hazardous but suicidal. It would be interesting to know whether the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) is merely trying to pick holes for the sake of keeping the debate going, or is seriously suggesting what I have not heard suggested yet by any Opposition spokesman or anyone else—that pumping would have been a feasible operation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press the implication that I am trying to waste time. What I was trying to make out was that exactly the same argument applies to the question of laying charges. I wanted to establish whether it was the presence of gas which made operations on the tanker deck in the early stages so hazardous, or whether the right hon. Gentleman was relying on the evidence of the actual explosion as evidence. The salvage captain was not in any way burned. This suggests that the explosion had nothing to do with gas.

Mr. Jenkins: I will come to the laying of charges in continuation of my argument.
The main point I am making now is that any activity near or on the ship carried grave danger of an explosion. It would have been impossible, in these circumstances, to have carried out this extremely long drawn-out pumping operation. The risks to those working on or close to the ship would, in the Government's view, have been quite unacceptable. It would not only have been human lives, but the whole objective of the operation which would have been at

risk. The sides of the tanker might have been split by the explosion and all the remaining oil spewed out into the sea. A pumping operation would have been highly desirable but, at least in the conditions which prevailed, quite unattainable.
The next best course would have been to refloat the ship and tow it away. The professional advice of the experts directly concerned was that this was a real possibility. It was the advice of the Dutch salvage firm—probably the most experienced in Europe. It was also the advice of the Chief Salvage Officer of the Navy Department. This officer had joined the salvage crew on Monday, 20th March. He had gone on board the tanker; he had closely discussed the position with the salvors and other experts.
As a result, until the tanker's broke her back, the Navy Department's view was that every effort should be made to refloat her. And, contrary to the impression since created, the British Petroleum experts did not dissent. This advice was given, and considered, in the knowledge that rising spring tides were gradually increasing the depth of water around the tanker, and would improve the chances of refloating her until they reached their peak on Monday, 27th, and Tuesday, 28th March.
When the reasonable possibility of this course succeeding is considered in conjunction with the uncertainties of the third course—firing the ship—there is no doubt in my mind that we were right to give the second course its chance. In the event, the second course failed and the third course succeeded. There is, in consequence, a natural tendency to think that this must have been obvious from the beginning. I can assure the House that it was far from obvious to anyone with expert knowledge and in full possession of the facts.

Captain Walter Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman says the Government consulted a Dutch salvage firm. Will not he agree that this firm had a great vested interest in persisting to the bitter end in trying to refloat the ship? Was that taken into account?

Mr. Jenkins: I have indicated the position fully. Had we taken no further advice than that of the Dutch salvage firm, we would be open to criticism. At


the same time, it is somewhat unreasonable to believe that this firm would have been totally lunatic in its approach to the matter and would have wished to go on with an operation which was killing members of its team and which had no hope of success.
Even so, had we taken no other advice I think that we could to some extent have been open to criticism, but, as I have said, the Chief Salvage Officer of the Royal Navy was working in the closest co-operation with the Dutch firm, was on board the "Torrey Canyon" on four different occasions and discussed the situation with the firm. We depended on his advice to a somewhat greater extent than that of the firm itself. I hope that, with this explanation, the certain amount of misunderstanding—I think genuine—which has arisen will be cleared up.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Will my right hon. Friend clear up his use of the word "We"? Is "we" the Royal Navy? Was the Navy put in charge here? If so, at what point?

Mr. Jenkins: The Royal Navy was dealing with the operation right from the beginning. As the White Paper points out, a naval helicopter was over the ship within a few hours of the wreck. When I say "we" I mean, of course, the Government. That is the normal case with Ministerial statements. I mean the Government, acting on the best professional advice available to us. This is the reasonable meaning to be attached to "we" in these circumstances.
Previous experience of firing tankers has not been encouraging. The Persian Gulf example was cited in the White Paper. And in any event, had we, from the beginning taken a more pessimistic view of floating-off, time was needed to prepare for firing. First, we needed to experiment with the possibilities of firing oil on the sea. Bombing was likely to spill the oil out without destroying it, and if we could not subsequently ignite it, this would have done much more harm than good.
The scientists who had been working on this problem, almost from the beginning, were not ready with practical experiments until the Easter weekend. In the event, these experiments, with sodium chlorate devices, gave over optimistic results. But to have risked spilling huge

quantities of oil without knowing what we were likely to have been able to do with it when spilt, would have been irresponsible in the extreme.

Mr. Peter Bessell: There have been several references to a tanker in the Persian Gulf. I have not been able to discover what tanker this was or when the disaster occurred. Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us?

Mr. Jenkins: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we went into this matter very closely. I think that it was about a year ago that the tanker was fired. It burned for a very long time, I believe for several months. At the end of this period, not quite half the oil had been destroyed. I am giving the facts from memory and should I have got them anywhere wrong, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be able to give a more detailed account.
Second, it was always our advice that if we were to fire, blowing open the decks with charges laid upon them was likely to be a more precise method than bombing. But in the weather conditions of the second half of the pre-Easter week, the laying of such charges was an impossible operation. But it might well have become possible before the ship broke up. Therefore, even if we had abandoned the possibility of towing away at a much earlier stage than was, in fact, reasonable, our advice would still have been to make more thorough preparations.
The first important change occurred on Easter Sunday evening, when we were flying back from our Ministerial meeting in Cornwall. The ship then broke into two parts. We were informed of this immediately we landed. Between then and the first bombing attack, almost 44 hours elapsed, and it has since been suggested that, whatever the previous position, this delay was too long.
I will tell the House, first, why this delay was not of great significance, and secondly, why it was unavoidable. It was not of great significance because not much further oil got out during this period. The two big spillages were at the time the ship hit the rocks on the first Saturday morning, and at the time of the break-up on the second Sunday evening. More important, it was unavoidable for the following reasons.
The first news of the break-up did not destroy the hope of towing away. On the contrary, it might have made it more likely. The stern of the ship was firmly embedded. That was the essence of the early problem. The break-up might have improved the chances of getting the bow part away. It was not until late on Monday, when the bow part had broken away, that it became clear that this was not so. In the meantime, however, the scientists were instructed to consider the new situation with the greatest urgency, and to report to Ministers at the earliest possible time—the middle of Monday afternoon.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Am I right in saying from the right hon. Gentleman's words that the bow part of the wreck was less firmly impaled on the Seven Stones than the stern part?

Mr. Jenkins: That I understand was the original position. Our first knowledge was that the stern part was most firmly impaled.
At that meeting on Monday we were at first advised that a considerable period would be required for firing preparations. We decided that this period should be drastically reduced. Corners should, if necessary, be cut. In this way, and as a result of herculean efforts by the scientists, that drastic reduction was secured. Much later on the Monday we were advised that the firing could be risked on the Tuesday, though it was a big risk. But there were still three considerations to be dealt with. The Seven Stones lightship had to be towed away and shipping had to be warned—and many small ships only listened to such warnings at nine in the morning.
Next, it seemed only common sense to try to fire an oil slick by bombing before running the risk of creating more such slicks. That attempt—unsuccessful as it proved—was made the next morning at ten, the earliest possible time after the warning. But that was not a cause of delay, for the bombing of the wreck itself could be best done at low-water. The first time that that occurred—after the warning to shipping—was at four on the Tuesday afternoon. At precisely that hour the first bombing attack on the wreck itself took place.
There was not a single hour of unnecessary delay, but what certainly remained

was a great deal of risk. The first attack was successful, but only partially so. It was not a quick, once-for-all operation. It had to be continued on two successive days and eventually almost the whole of the remaining oil was destroyed. But it remained until the end a difficult, delicate operation. These are the facts of the decision-making process. I do not believe that any hon. Member who considers them objectively will believe that it was either an easy or a dilatory process.
I now come to the third main part of what I want to say to the House, which is concerned with future action. One of our immediate objectives will be to recover as much as we can of the cost, so far approximately £2 million, which the taxpayer has to meet. The Treasury Solicitor wrote to the owners' lawyers on 31st March, giving them notification of a claim for damages by Her Majesty's Government. The legal situation is complicated as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General indicated at Question Time. The matter will be energetically pursued.
There are a variety of possible places where it could be pursued. It will be pursued in those places which are best from the point of view of the interests of the British taxpayer and the inhabitants of Cornwall. I do not think that it would be useful for me at this stage to go further than the Attorney-General has already gone. Other matters for the future involve both national and international action. Both embrace a complex variety of questions, involving research and maritime law and practice.
On the international side, our aim is to strengthen wherever necessary and practicable, the international arrangements designed to prevent accidents of this nature, and to deal with the consequences if they should occur. As the House knows, the Government have taken the initiative in convening an early meeting of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, to consider such questions. We hope that the Council of the Organisation will meet on 4th and 5th May.
The meeting will be asked to consider matters such as the passage of ships containing oil and other noxious and potentially dangerous substances, where shipwreck can cause damage to neighbouring


shores. It will also be asked to consider, particularly in the light of the increasing size of ships, questions affecting navigation in and near to territorial waters.
National action will include examining the possibility of control of maritime movements close to our shores; the problems of carrying hazardous cargoes in waters where an accident could affect British interests; salvage operations and the methods which were used and which were suggested for dealing with the oil in the tanker on the sea and on shore.
Sir Solly Zuckerman, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser—to whose work throughout the period of crisis I cannot pay too high a tribute—with his working party of experts, will continue to review the results of the numerous research projects which have been carried out in the past three weeks. They will also consider many of the suggestions which have been volunteered from outside. These research projects made use of the resources of the Warren Springs Laboratory of the Ministry of Technology, the Hydraulics Research Station, the Fire Research Station, the Admiralty Oil Laboratory, the Royal Army Research and Development Establishment, the Fisheries and Shell Fish Laboratories of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the laboratories of the Royal Navy Marine Services Directorate and the Marine Biological Association.
Having reviewed the results of the research, the Chief Scientific Adviser will recommend any further research which may be desirable to increase the effectiveness of the measures which were taken or devise new methods of dealing with similar disasters in the future. Consideration will also be given to hazardous cargoes other than oil and to the dangers which they might produce, the precautions which should be taken to prevent them and the measures which should be taken to counter the effect of any accidents which, nevertheless, occurred. The results of all this work and research will be put to the Select Committee on Science and Technology so that it may examine them and make recommendations to the House.
This wide-ranging action for the future is bound to take some time and I cannot tell the House exactly when it will be

completed. But it will all be most urgently pressed ahead. The problems to be examined will grow more and not less acute as time goes by. As the scale of our industry becomes larger and our technology more advanced, the menace of a disaster, when it occurs, is liable to be correspondingly greater. Safety precautions must keep pace with the other developments and reduce the likelihood of such disasters. But if a disaster does take place, its consequences make the questions we are considering of the greatest national importance. The Government will seek to resolve them all as quickly as possible.
I end, as I began, with the Motion. It asks the House to accept the White Paper, which tells in bare and unembroidered outline the story of the "Torrey Canyon" wreck and the Government's measures to deal with the problem. It asks the House to endorse those measures. It does not propose a Select Committee to inquire into the past. An inquest is certainly not called for. But it does suggest that the Select Committee on Science and Technology, fed with all the work which has been and will be done by the Government scientists, can make a most valuable Parliamentary contribution towards what should now be the main concern of all of us—how we can best avoid similar troubles in the future.

4.44 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: I must first, somewhat ruefully, declare an interest as a member of an underwriting syndicate of Lloyd's. Secondly, on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to join the Government in paying tribute to the Services, local authorities, ancillary services, voluntary bodies, volunteers and the representatives of Government Departments. We on this side of the House welcome the better news which the Home Secretary has given today. We shall study the prospects as described by him and his comments on the effect of what has happened on wild life and fish.
The Home Secretary has read us rather pompously and sanctimoniously a speech which he introduced by saying that we were having this debate in an atmosphere of less tension than had been expected. He attributed this—and this is why I say that his speech was sanctimonious and laced with humbug—to a change of attitude on the part of my right hon. Friend


the Leader of the Opposition. But the truth is that the country and the Government have been saved by something outside the Government's control, namely, a shift of the prevailing wind. If the prevailing wind, which is south-westerly, had blown for more than a few days during the past three or four weeks, there would still be a great deal of tension underlying this debate. It was, therefore, evasive of the Home Secretary to make no reference to this in his introductory remarks.

Mr. John Pardoe: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt will be aware that this is not the first occasion on which the coasts of Britain have been saved by a change in the prevailing wind. I refer to the Armada, with which the West Country had something to do.

Sir K. Joseph: On that occasion the then Monarch sang the Magnificat in praise of God for having saved this country and did not make a boastful, arrogant speech claiming the credit for the Government. It is for the Government to come to the House and to justify their action and not to pullulate about how the Opposition tackled the problem. The Opposition did not have to tackle the problem. It is for the Government to tackle it, and it is for the Government to justify what they did.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition criticises the Government when he thinks it justified. But on this occasion he was scrupulous in saying that we must wait for evidence. The remarks which the Home Secretary has dragged out of context—and I have the Press cutting from the Liverpool Daily Post of 29th March before me—were made, not in a statement by my right hon. Friend, but in answer to a question during a Press conference, when he was asked whether the bombing might not have occurred earlier. He had said in his statement that he welcomed the apparent success of the bombing and that he thought that the Government should tell the House and the country what had happened so that a judgment on their behaviour could be made.
We have witnessed another classic example of the way in which the Prime Minister's and Paymaster-General's minds work. Being under very heavy attack

from the Press a couple of weeks ago, they decided to build up the questioning of my right hon. Friend as if it had amounted to a Motion of censure. I challenge the Home Secretary or anyone else to produce any statement by my right hon. Friend amounting to more than the sort of questioning which everybody was carrying out at the time. If it comes to criticising leaders of parties, I notice that the Home Secretary, in a 40-minute speech, was careful not to follow the red herring about flags of convenience which the Prime Minister dropped when things looked critical for the Government.
Up to the concluding paragraphs of the Home Secretary's speech, the Opposition's main point had been met. The Opposition have all the time asked that when action had been more or less concluded there should be an inquiry into what had happened and into the lessons for the future. This the Government appeared to concede, and that is why the Opposition were, and are, prepared to accept the Motion.
However, the Home Secretary, in the last moments of his speech, seemed to rule out any examination of the past. He said that there was no question of an inquest. Let us be clear about this: obviously the Government do not want an inquest. We think that we cannot draw conclusions for the future unless there is some degree of examination of the past. We assume, therefore—and I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will answer a number of questions on this—that the Select Committee on Science and Technology will be enabled to look at the past so far as it is relevant to the future, and that must include a judgment on the Government's behaviour.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: So far from the Government being anxious to avoid discussion of what occurred, as the right hon. Gentleman must be only too well aware, it has been the Government who, throughout, have thought it highly desirable to have a full day's debate on this matter at the earliest opportunity.

Sir K. Joseph: We shall still expect the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government to answer a few very straight questions about the


powers and scope of the Select Committee to which the Government propose to refer this question.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology already has on board a heavy inquiry into the nuclear reactor programme. I understand that its staff is already under some strain. Do the Government, therefore, propose to reinforce the staff? I know that the Chairman of the Select Committee is present, and we on this side of the House, of course, entirely agree about the authoritative capacity of the Committee, if properly equipped, to tackle this job.
Secondly, do the Government propose that the membership of the Committee should be reinforced and, in particular, that perhaps assessors should be co-opted to the Committee on specific highly technical subjects, such as oil chemistry, navigation and the law of the sea? Is it suggested that it is to be the Select Committee on Science and Technology which considers the state of the law and any changes of the law? We entirely accept that it is for the Government to recommend and to set in hand any changes in the law, but will the law be considered by the Select Committee?
We assume that the Select Committee will have power to summon witnesses and to have papers produced for it and that it will sit in public. We assume that it will be free to consider what the Government did and the assumptions made by the Government and the advice given to the Government, if the Committee so decides. We expect the Minister of Housing and Local Government to answer these questions, which are at the heart of the debate.

Dr. David Owen: Surely all the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has posed are for the Select Committee on Science and Technology to decide. It is not for the Government to tell us how the Committee shall go about its work. They have only to draw up the terms of reference and it is then for the Committee to decide how to interpret the terms of reference, whether to sit in private or public, and so on. We are already empowered to sit in public if we want and it is our job to decide whether we want assessors, and all the other questions which the right hon. Gentleman has put to the Government.

Sir K. Joseph: To a large extent that is true, but I am asking whether the Government will play their part in giving the options to the Committee, particularly about staff and powers and assessors. It was the Prime Minister himself who told the House, in reply to questions after his statement that if there were a Select Committee it should have not only "details of our experience"—those were his words—but also the "lessons we have drawn".
I now turn to a few of the questions which the Select Committee may wish to consider. First, there can be no question of the Government pleading that they had not been warned about this sort of crisis. Sometimes I get the names muddled when I think to myself of the "Torrey Maru" and the "Tokyo Canyon", because it was only a few months ago that the "Tokyo Maru" released a great deal of oil off our shores. That should have warned the Government to look to the country's defences in that way, but in fact evidence of Government indifference to this subject came on 6th February in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys).
On that occasion he and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) pressed the Government to make preparations and to provide financial compensation for the defences of local authorities on the coast against the release of oil.
On that occasion, the Government were represented by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who took a very stalwart and robust attitude. He said that no grants were available to local authorities and went on to say that the Government had no powers to pay grants to local authorities and, moreover, did not intend to obtain such powers. Moreover, he put on record the view of a North Country Member of Parliament representing an industrial constituency—
… who sometimes wonders whether people on the coast realise their advantages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 1077.]
I gather from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham that the Parliamentary Secretary did not even


follow up his undertaking in that debate to write to my hon. Friend on a technical question which then arose. That shows that the Government did not exactly prepare themselves in the light of the "Tokyo Maru" and the warnings of my hon. Friends for what has since happened. We would be grateful if the Minister of Housing and Local Government would tell us whether he yet has powers to pay grants to local authorities, or whether there will need to be legislation for the purpose.
Another question which the Select Committee will have to ask—that is presumptuous I should have said that another question which the Select Committee may wish to put to itself—concerns the apparently slow tempo of the first week's conduct by the Government. Despite all the bustle, there was very little evidence of grip. Let us consider the position as it was three and a half days after the "Torrey Canyon" went on the rocks, on the Tuesday evening. At that time, so far as I can piece the evidence together, there was a total reliance by the Government on the Admiralty salvage expert who, of course, was a great expert on salvage, but who did not have to take a comprehensive view which took account of pollution dangers.
It may have been right—and I do not presume to question it—to try floating off the ship first. It may have been right, although I imagine that the Select Committee will want to weigh the scepticism of all local opinion, the scepticism of the oil companies, the doubts within the Admiralty itself and the doubts which the Prime Minister himself confessed to have been shared by the Government.
Even assuming that it was right to give priority to floating off, surely it would have been sensible, if the Government had a firm grip on events, to make preparations for the second alternative, namely, firing, and to make those preparations in the calm spell at the beginning, in the first three and a half days. In fact, as far as I can make out, there were no preparations for firing. The Home Secretary used this word "firing" which, in this sense, is a very respectable word, to cover two quite different operations. On the one hand, there is firing by way of charges, a relatively precise and filigree operation, and,

on the other, there is bombing, which is a blunt weapon to use in this sort of situation.
There were no preparations for firing and no testing of firing until later in the first week and no meeting of scientists even, until the Wednesday, and—and this is a damning piece of evidence—not even a meeting of the emergency committee of which the Home Secretary is chairman. I suggest that the Select Committee may wish to consider the relatively slow tempo of that first week and the evidence of a lack of grasp of the options available. It appears to the layman observer that there was all the pantomime of a combined operation, but very little of the reality.
It may have been right to hold the firing in reserve until floating-off had failed. No doubt the Select Committee will make a judgment on that, but the Prime Minister's answer to the question why no preparations for placing demolition charges were made during those first days does not stand up to the evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham squarely put to him the question of why, in those first days of calm, the Government had not arranged for demolition charges to be put on board. The Prime Minister replied that the ship was a bomb, that it might have gone off at any time and that it would have been most dangerous to place charges.
I do not think that the Prime Minister can have realised that my hon. Friend was referring to those first three or four days during which the crew, the salvers and the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy were themselves on board. If it was good enough for them—and I accept that they might have been taking great risks—it was not unthinkable that demolition charges could have been placed. I am sure that the Select Committee will wish to inquire whether Admiralty advice to place demolition charges in order to preserve the option of firing was given during those first three or four days.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman willing to draw a distinction between the first eight days, when the ship was on the reef, when it was a ship, and the period thereafter, when it was a wreck? Bombing the wreck was one thing. Bombing the


ship, with all the repercussions in international law and the opinion of other countries, was totally different.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he neatly leads into my next point: what I would call the great mystery of legality. Does the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy wish to intervene? Was he not aboard the wreck?

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Maurice Foley): No, I was not aboard.

Sir K. Joseph: I apologise to the hon. Member. I had thought that he was.
I hope that the Select Committee will consider the mystery of legality. The Prime Minister and the Government now adopt a posture of almost boastful indifference to the law. There is nothing wrong, it seems to me, with respect for the law, provided that in a situation like this the Government reserve the right to go outside the law if they are justified in the national interest in doing so.
Why, however, is there all this impression of defiance of the law? In answer to questions on 4th April, the Prime Minister twice dragged in the Government's complete indifference to international law, and in paragraph 3 of the White Paper we find the same boastful defiance. The Select Committee may wish to consider the state of the law as it appeared to the Government because, plainly, it is important for the future that Governments should know what is within the law and what is not.
I get the impression that all this boasting is a cover-up operation to disguise the fact that from the beginning the Government regarded themselves as totally shackled by law and finance, the two together.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Rubbish.

Sir K. Joseph: We hope that the Select Committee examine what the Government's legal obligations were. Here, however, we have two Ministers contradicting completely the views put by the Prime Minister and the White Paper. There was, first, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, a Minister of the greatest integrity, who said on two occasions in the first week,

on the Monday and the Friday, that no action was possible until the owners' agreement had been received.

Mr. Foley: If I may clarify this—it was quoted in another place in the debate last Thursday—on the Monday morning I made such a statement in response to a question asking why we would not destroy the vessel. I went on to say that at that moment our own salvage experts were on board. Later that day, on the Monday evening, I announced that the findings of our salvage experts were that we should give every assistance to the salvors to refloat the vessel. That was the statement which I made.

Sir K. Joseph: That does not answer the fact that the Under-Secretary it seems to me perfectly properly, asserted that the law would influence what the Government did. He said the same thing again on the Friday.
It was not, however, only an Under-Secretary who said that. In the House, the Secretary of State for Defence said on 20th March that the Government
are not in a position to be able to set fire to the ship until"—
the owners—
give their agreement".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 1056.]
The right hon. Gentleman spoke later of "legal problems".
We on our side have no complaint about the Government considering legal problems. It is their job to do so. What we find odd is that they should take such pride in appearing to take no notice of legal problems. We suspect that there is something behind this. It may be that the Prime Minister was seeking to avoid the charge of kowtowing to American oil interests—the owners. All that he said did not save him from a rather sharp cartoon in last week's issue of the New Statesman. Altogether, we believe that on the question of the law the Prime Minister "doth protest too much".
We hope that the Select Committee will look at the efforts made by the Government to make use of the most suitable decontamination agent—that is, the most effective, the most available and the least damaging to all forms of life. We have doubt whether the Government seriously tried out all the possible decontamination agents that might have been useful. I have evidence in letters of several tested


and tried decontaminants that were offered to the Government, some of which, indeed, were tested by the Government. We would like to know how the Government went about the assessment of the best agents and how they will continue to keep abreast, possibly through Warren Springs, of what is most suitable.
It is important that the Government should not simply take what is immediately available without consideration of what is the optimum. In this case, it was the initiative of B.P. which made the detergent available. As far as I know, the Government did not take adequate steps to try out the alternatives that could equally have been available and might have been more effective.
I turn now to a difficult technical question on which, as a layman, I can only touch, and that is the persistence of the oil. In another place, Lord Shackleton told the House that the oil normally gets what he called "degraded" in about two months in sea conditions. What does this mean? Will the Select Committee seek evidence about what happens to the oil? Does, on the one hand, decontamination and, on the other, firing only destroy the top particles of the oil, leaving a sludgy residue behind? I ask not because I presume to know the answer but because the possible future damage to our shores depends very much on how much of the oil can be destroyed by which method.
Will the oil persist for many weeks still to be a danger to our shores? The Prime Minister certainly thought so when he spoke on 4th April, and the White Paper states that more oil may be expected in weeks to come. On the other hand, we have the good news from the resorts, we have the good news which the Home Secretary has given this afternoon and we have the wonderful good luck and good fortune of a northerly or north-easterly wind which is rapidly driving the oil slicks far away from our shores.
We would like to hear from the Minister of Housing and Local Government more about whether the Government contemplate any form of compensation to fishermen, hoteliers, shopkeepers and those bodies which are trying to do their best for wildlife. We would like to know whether the Government contemplate any action on the domestic insurance front. We would like to hear much about the

Government's proposals for changes in the law. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), who will be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will be asking a number of questions on the law, but the summary of them for the right hon. Gentleman who replies is set out in these two sentences. What alterations will the Government seek in international law, and by what means? Do the Government have any proposals for amending our domestic law?
The House will expect to hear from the Government their first thoughts on how future emergencies will be dealt with. Do they contemplate a standing agency, perhaps the National Environmental Research Council or some other agency, which would be a central body for the collection of whatever might be the suitable expertise if a crisis occurs? As the Home Secretary has rightly said, the potentiality of disasters gets bigger in this modern world and we might be faced with a wreck involving noxious chemicals or atomic waste. It would be inexcusable if the Government were not ready to deal with it. We hope that they will tell us more about the equipment which they think should be standing by, whether there should be a decontamination fleet and whether there should be any changes in the equipment of the Navy for this purpose.
Finally, I return to the point that matters most to us on this side, namely, now that the safety of the country has been assured by Providence—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is true. The point which matters is the powers and scope of the Select Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman be sure, please, to tell the House whether the Government propose to reinforce the Committee, its membership and its staff? Shall we be told what powers and what scope the Committee has? In deference to the hon. Gentleman's point, I defer all questions of its sitting in public or in private—

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I do not wish to take any part in the debate, but I would point out to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) that it is the normal practice of the Select Committee at present to sit in public.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful for that assurance.

5.10 p.m.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Three weeks and two days ago the tanker "Torrey Canyon" ran ashore on the Seven Stones Reef. On most of the days since that time, oil has been coming ashore over a large part of the coastline of my constituency, and I want to express some of the doubt and concern which has been felt in my constituency, while, at the same time, welcoming enthusiastically the White Paper and the actions which have been outlined in it. The House will forgive me if I do not go as deeply as did the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) into the problems of the Select Committee.
This shipwreck took place shortly after nine o'clock in the morning, in broad daylight. It took place in comparatively good weather—good, that is, for this part of the country. It took place when visibility was good. We are told that the ship was travelling at some 17 knots when it struck the reef, which is a high speed for an oil tanker as long as the Palace of Westminster.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether some of the other rumours which are circulating in my constituency are true. Did the tanker pass sufficiently close to the lightship for the crew of that lightship to come on deck and shout to the tanker to stop? Is it true that, when they did that, they could see no one on the bridge of the tanker? Is it true that there was no one on the deck of the tanker at the time? It seems to me that, in this case, as a navigational instrument the radar screen has perhaps been replaced by the alarm clock.
Shortly after the shipwreck took place, oil began to escape. However, I must underline the considerable anxiety which has been felt by many people at the theory that an appreciable part of the initial oil pollution occurred as a result of deliberate pumping out of oil from the ship. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, perhaps the House might be told to what extent that was so, because it may have some bearing on subsequent legal proceedings.
Very soon, we in West Cornwall realised that we were facing a major crisis and threat to our beaches and

coastline. It brought with it a consequent threat to the whole economy of our county, which depends to a large extent on the beauties of its coastline and the holiday and tourist trade related to it. The oil pollution was the main threat, but there were inevitably secondary effects. There was the threat of the detergent, particularly to marine life, and there was the risk of explosion which has been mentioned already. Ideally, we would want to prevent that sort of disaster, but we were faced with a situation where we had to cure the pollution which had arisen already.
At all costs, we had to ensure that the tanker did not go down under the surface of the sea with a significant proportion of its oil aboard. If that had happened, we should have had a virtual undersea oil-well which could have pumped out oil in dribs and drabs not just for weeks, months or years, but even for decades. There are wrecks under the surface of the sea in some parts of the world which are doing precisely that and which carried very much less oil than the "Torrey Canyon".
I do not want to go into detailed consideration of the problems involved. We should ask ourselves not whether these decisions were right or wrong but whether the Government took the advice of the right experts. I believe that the White Paper shows that that was done and was done at the right time. From my own professional training, I know how unwise it is for one who is not versed in the technicalities of a subject to venture too deeply into any discussion of that subject, and I am no expert on exploding ships stuck on reefs.
I must express appreciation of the cooperation that was evident between Government Departments, local authorities and other organisations from the early days of the crisis. The local authorities in this part of the county are small. In my constituency and that of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), which are the two most directly threatened, there are no less than 11 local authorities. There is also the county council and a river board directly and intimately affected. A considerable number of Government Departments were also affected, and the Armed Services came into the picture at an early stage. I must pay tribute to the degree of co-operation and


to the hard work and long hours put in by people involved in all these different branches of the Government and the Services, at one point over a holiday weekend. I pay tribute, too, to members of the United States Air Force who are at the moment helping on some Cornish beaches. I pay tribute as well to the French Service personnel who co-operated at certain stages when we were dealing with problems in the Channel. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, whom I am pleased to see in his place, in the first few days played a bigger part in achieving the success of this co-ordination than anyone else.
I mentioned the part which the French Services have played already in the crisis. We hear today that pollution from this wreck is now beginning to appear on the shores of Northern France. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, can he assure us that we will pass on to the French Government, without question, all the information and knowledge which we have acquired, and that, if necessary and practicable, we will exchange equipment and vessels to assist them in facing the sort of crisis which we in Cornwall have been facing over the last three weeks?
I want to deal with one or two of the special problems mentioned in the White Paper which have been touched on already in the debate. I refer first to the problems of pollution, by which I mean not just surface pollution on the beaches, because I believe that that is being combated fairly effectively and efficiently, but pollution which inevitably has occurred on the rocks and coves which form the major part of the coastline which has been affected so far.
In the White Paper, we read of experiments being conducted to try to solve this very difficult problem. I should like to know a little more about the type of experiments being conducted and the degree of success which is being achieved. It makes my heart sink to walk along the cliffs on the northern side of my constituency and look down on areas of coastline which, admittedly, tourists and holidaymakers rarely see but which local people know well, and see them still drenched with hard, black, shiny oil.
Even on the beaches, although the surface problem is under control, there is the difficulty of oil soaking into the beaches. It is heart-breaking to look at golden sand, scrape it with one's foot and, half an inch under the surface, find that the colour has changed to dark brown. If one picks up some of this material, one's fingers are stained. Will this sort of contamination be washed down with the tides twice a day? Shall we have to employ other methods of using detergents? Are experiments taking place and, if so, what are they?
Turning to the problems of booms, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when he opened the debate, we have experimented with the use of booms, though not with great success so far. I appreciate that the technical problems are enormous. The boom which was originally to be strung round the "Torrey Canyon" was strung across the Fal Estuary. The first time that we had a force 5 wind, it fell apart and was deposited on the shoreline of the constituency of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson). A force 5 wind is nothing unusual in the Fal Estuary. What progress is being made in designing and producing effective oil-resistant booms?
I should especially like to ask about the position of the Fal Estuary and that of the Helford River, because those are two estuaries on the southern coast of the county in each of which we find combined an enormous amenity value together with industry. In the Fal Estuary, we have very attractive rural countryside coming down to the river, and we also have ship repair yards of world renown. The Helford River area is extremely attractive and the oyster beds there form a local industry.
The suggestion has been made that one or two unscrupulous tankers have used this tragedy to discharge oil into the sea in recent weeks off the shore of Cornwall. I hope that this suggestion will be looked into by the Government and that, if possible, stringent international action will be taken.
Looking to the future, what steps do the Government envisage taking to meet the possibility of this problem recurring in future years? Are they considering the setting up of depots containing detergent and other equipment in areas like


Cornwall, where the risk is obviously greater than in other parts of the country? If so, will this detergent be provided free, as in this case, and is the whole problem of financing further oil clearance operations in years to come being kept under review? I do not agree with those who have, with hindsight, been critical, but I trust that this matter will be kept closely under review.
I urge the Government to express in more detail their attitude towards the problem internationally, in particular the problem of the increasingly large size of tanker now being used. Should we not limit the size of these tankers, the routes by which they may travel the world and their speed? I suggest that these vessels are, first, travelling too fast, are, secondly, too big and, thirdly, as in this case, are in the wrong places.
I do not feel as convinced as some who have spoken on this subject since the disaster occurred about the problem of flags of convenience, although I feel some anxiety and have certain doubts about the whole question. I read in my Sunday newspaper last weekend that more ships are being built for Liberia than any other country and I understand that Liberia's merchant fleet is now second to none.

Mr. Bessell: Registered fleet.

Dr. Dunwoody: I am referring to registration. However, in that country maritime traditions are virtually nil. Some of the difficulties have been mentioned this afternoon. My constituents who have had dealings with ships sailing under flags of convenience share my doubts. Many of these people who are associated with ship ownership take the view that many of the ships sailing under flags of convenience form a type of unfair competition and some of those who work in the shipbuilding industry have doubts about the quality and standards that are being maintained by these concerns.

Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman take his argument a stage further and urge the Government to cut the taxation on shipping, an imposition which is driving so much of the registration of shipping to foreign countries?

Dr. Dunwoody: I do not intend to conduct a long debate about flags of convenience. This year's Statesmen's Year

Book comments in the section about Liberia:
The Liberian Government requires only a modest registration fee and an almost nominal annual charge …
It adds:
… and maintains no control over the operations of ships flying the Liberian flag.
I do not want to see those sorts of financial arrangements coming into the British maritime industry.
Salvage methods have, if only by implication, been criticised today. Several hon. Members have referred to the way in which salvage companies are paid for their work. It appears that they secure their income in a way that is only proportionate to the extent to which they salvage ships. This method of paying—purely by results—is, in maritime terms, wrong and out-dated. It may mean that salvage operators will take greater risks than they would otherwise take. This may possibly be one of the reasons for the tragedy that occurred on the "Torrey Canyon" in the first few days.
There is also the risk that salvage operations will be prolonged, with forlorn attempts being made to salvage a vessel because the financial reward is so great. It is reasonable to suggest that such things as oil pollution along the Cornish coast may not be sufficiently well to the fore in the minds of salvage operators as it is in the minds of most other people.
It is stated in the White Paper that unexploded bombs still exist on the reef. How many such bombs are there and how great a hazard do they represent? What further steps are in the mind of the Government to get rid of them?
In retrospect, it is fair to say that in the last three and a half weeks we have seen in the far South-West one of the greatest peace-time operations any Government of this country have mounted. This operation is a guarantee to the holiday-maker that he can come to the South-West, to Cornwall, for his holiday this year without fear. I must add—although perhaps I should not say this—that some of the beaches may be cleaner than they were before. If anybody cancels his holiday because of what has occurred he will be acting shortsightedly and out of stupidity. To those who are in doubt, I say, "Book now", because if bookings are not made


immediately potential holiday-makers will face the same problem as they have faced for many years, and will fail to get a booking.
I give the same advice to hon. Members. Last year in my constituency—and I am sure that this applies to other constituencies in West Cornwall—we entertained a record number of hon. and right hon. Members. I hope that last year's record will be broken this year by a great attendance of M.P.s.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. John Nott: It is right that the principal subject of discussion in this debate should be the national and international lessons that can he drawn from this disaster to ensure that such an accident does not happen again. In this respect, I congratulate the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) who made an excellent speech. Whatever quarrels I may have with his right hon. Friends—and I have some; I will come to them in a moment—I seldom have any disagreement with him, my neighbour in West Cornwall. Similarly, I welcome this further opportunity of adding my tribute to the Royal Navy, the Army, local authorities in Cornwall, particularly those in my constituency, to voluntary bodies like the R.S.P.C.A. and to the many hundreds of people who turned out to help clean the beaches when the disaster first occurred.
Having said that, I feel that my principal task today is to look to the past and hold an inquest on what occurred because I was the constituency hon. Member most affected by this incident and I believe that there are many lessons to be drawn from the way in which it was handled. I wish, first, to consider the whole question of oil pollution on our shores before the "Torrey Canyon" went aground and whether it was tackled with sufficient urgency by the Government. Secondly, I wish to consider the action which the Government took when the vessel foundered on the Seven Stones. I do not find post mortems enjoyable, but someone with personal knowledge of the incidents that occurred from the moment the "Torrey Canyon" went aground is entitled to examine the statements made in the White Paper and the options which the Government faced at the time.
I find the White Paper a most inadequate and disappointing document. I

had hoped that when it was published it would contain the different judgments of the experts which the Government considered. But the White Paper does not contain nearly enough detail on these aspects. I am critical of many aspects of the Government's handling of the affair. I at least share this criticism with practically every journalist of every newspaper who was on the spot in the early days following the incident. I do not recall an occasion when the journalists of practically every newspaper—of whatever political complexion, if that has anything to do with it—were so unanimously agreed that there had been a lack of decisiveness in the early days and that that led to a great deal of pollution which might not otherwise have occurred.
That being so, I must ask some questions. First, I ask whether this disaster was of such an unprecedented nature that it could not have been foreseen, or at least whether the Government might have foreseen some aspects of it. Secondly, I must inquire into the decision-making process which led up to the decision to try to salvage the vessel, as explained in the White Paper. While it is true that the grounding of the "Torrey Canyon" on the Seven Stones could not have been foreseen—although there was a high statistical probability that an accident of this sort was likely to occur at some time in the future—nevertheless it is true that the pollution which occurred, although perhaps not to such a great extent, certainly could have been foreseen and the Government had had many warnings of the dangers of such pollution in the past.
Let me confine myself to 1966. In that year, to use the words of the recent report of the Advisory Committee,
… oil pollution around the coasts of the British Isles has been the worst for many years.
My right hon. Friend has referred to the "Tokyo Maru" incident which occurred in May, 1966. On that occasion a Japanese supertanker discharged oil off the Isles of Scilly and the oil covered eight square miles of the seas around my constituency.
When I tried to get the Government to take action on that event there was great reluctance to do so. Because there was reluctance in response to my telephone calls, I wrote to the President of


the Board of Trade on 26th May. In my letter I said:
The Isles of Scilly and my constituency depend for their livelihood on the tourist industry and over the past eighteen months some of the best beaches have been despoiled by oil pollution. There is very serious concern indeed about this matter on the part of the local authorities and the whole community.
I went on to ask specifically of the President of the Board of Trade in May of last year what redress was available should pollution occur and should oil be discharged between the three and 12-mile limits—the very question which the Government are now urgently considering following the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. I also asked questions about grants and whether local authorities could have grant assistance to clear up the oil. My letter was passed by the President of the Board of Trade to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, now the Leader of the House. He did not answer my letter.
As I received no reply from the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, I raised the matter, as the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, in the Standing Committee of the Local Government Bill. On Clause 9 I asked the Minister, now the Leader of the House, whether he would again consider this question of grants to local authorities. He replied:
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has put into my head the matter about oil pollution … The hon. Member has made a case for saying that there might be a specific grant for coastal problems. I will certainly bear that in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 7th July, 1966; c. 212.]
Patiently I waited for months and months for some action to be taken on this matter, but none came.
On 12th December, 1966, I wrote to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources and sent a copy to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whom I am glad to see here today. In his reply the Minister of Land and Natural Resources said that he, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, would
certainly bear in mind"—
this was in December—
the suggestion you made to Dick Crossman during the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill that there should be a grant towards expenditure incurred by local authorities … But, as I have said, so far there is little evidence of financial hardship and,

while not ruling out the eventual possibility, we feel that it is still too early to take a decision on whether direct aid from the Exchequer is justified.
That was many months after the Japanese tanker had discharged eight square miles of oil into the sea.
Still the Government took no action on this type of problem. Throughout 1966 and early 1967 the Government received, among other things, many recommendations from the local authorities in my constituency. I cannot go into all of them. I have a whole file of the recommendations which the Government received throughout last year. Among these recommendations were: first, that pressure be brought on the Government to deal with oil at sea by the use of Service craft and the purchase by local authorities jointly of standby equipment. That recommendation might have been implemented when this question was raised last year.
The local authorities recommended, secondly, that emergency teams should be formulated to tackle oil pollution; and, thirdly, that the Government should inflict far heavier penalties on offenders under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act. This the Government are now considering as a matter of urgency. It requires a disaster on this scale to get the Government to understand that local authorities have been trying to get action out of the Government for many months.
A fourth recommendation—these recommendations are taken from many which the Ministries have received—was that one Minister should be responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the seven Ministries in Whitehall which are responsible for the different aspects of pollution.
One can imagine the astonishment and anger created in Cornwall when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, perhaps in an unguarded moment—we can all make these mistakes, but I feel that he should be censured for this—said:
… the fact that nothing has happened it-the last few days might have lulled them "—
that is, the local authorities—
into thinking that everything is all right.
Then he made that famous statement that some local authorities in my constituency "have been lethargic". It was the Government who were lethargic throughout


1966 in paying no attention to the recommendations that the local authorities had sent them. The Government could not have foreseen the stranding of the tanker on the Seven Stones but they were warned repeatedly about the dangers of oil pollution, by local authorities in West Cornwall who had recommended the very type of co-ordination and structure and administrative framework which the Government say they have created to tackle the "Torrey Canyon" affair.
On the Saturday morning, a few hours after the "Torrey Canyon" went aground, following my normal procedure I picked up the telephone and tried to get Whitehall into action. I think this was before the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy came into the affair. At Saturday lunchtime the Navy was standing by and had sent out one ship with spraying equipment to tackle the oil slick. The Navy had asked the Treasury how much money it could have to deal with this disaster. The Treasury had granted the Navy £1,000 at lunch time on that Saturday. By tea time, following the protest that I had made in Whitehall that this was one of the greatest disasters which had hit Cornwall for many years, the Treasury agreed to grant the Navy £5,000 to tackle this disaster. I only say this to indicate the problems which we have had in Cornwall over many months and years. This was the sort of response that we have had before, and I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members generally who represent Cornish constituencies will confirm this.
May I quickly pass on to the second of my points, which is the question of the decision-making processes during the early days, and the words that are used in the White Paper. I find the White Paper a thoroughly unsatisfactory document. It does no justice whatsoever to the well-meant criticisms which were made by journalists, by the Press widely, including The Guardian, the Observer. the Sun, The Times—take any newspaper you like. I met some of the journalists down in Cornwall during these two weeks and we all felt deeply that no decision was being taken. When I say that these were well-meant criticisms, I mean that they were not made for party political reasons at all. We were concerned with the oil which was coming on to our

beaches, and we were genuinely concerned that something should be done with rapidity.
No one would dispute the grave dilemma which faced the Government in the early days of the disaster. Any positive attempt to consume the oil by fire required a very tough and ruthless decision and, indeed, such a decision would have involved very high risks. It involved the risk that either the tanker would burn very slowly indeed—the incident of the tanker in the Persian Gulf has been quoted—or it inolved the risk of an enormous explosion.
One accepts the dilemma of the Government in this respect. But the situation called on that first Sunday and Monday for tough and ruthless action to prevent the oil from spreading and to consume it while it was still containable and could still be fired. I do not believe that tough and ruthless action was taken. The tough decision would have been to blow the hatches off, let the air in and fire it. That is what should have happened.
I sent a message to the Prime Minister at 11 o'clock on the Monday morning suggesting that the tanker should be fired. No one can say that this is an ex-post facto judgment on my part. Many of my hon. Friends representing West Country constituencies within the three days following the disaster—we admitted our lack of scientific and technical knowledge—suggested that this seemed to be the solution which in the interests of Cornwall, the South-West and the country should have been taken.
I do not understand how it was that the Prime Minister could have made the statement from the Dispatch Box that he did last week. I understand that Shell was never consulted on the issue about whether the oil could be fired or not. If it was, perhaps the Minister would say something about it when he winds up. However, I am told by Shell that it was never consulted about whether firing was technically feasible.
I was in touch with B.P. on Saturday at lunchtime before the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy came into the matter, in order to get detergent into Cornwall. There were only 6,500 gallons available in the West Country. This was something


that the local authorities had recommended should be obtained and kept in stock. As I say, I was in touch with B.P., and was told that firing was feasible. I know that B.P. took part in discussions with the Government. I am aware that a representative of B.P. was present. But I believe that the representative of B.P. was never asked straightforwardly whether firing was scientifically and technically possible. I believe that B.P. was there to advise on legal and other considerations.

Mr. Foley: Perhaps I could explain the matter. The B.P. manager of operations travelled down with me on the Sunday, the day following the wreck, in order to go on board on the Monday morning to look at the salvage possibility. The day after the wreck, on the Sunday, the general manager of B.P. authorised a statement, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister read out from the Dispatch Box, which stated clearly that if the ship could not be refloated and if the legal complications could be overcome, firing would be recommended. These were the words of the general manager of B.P. in a statement the day after the wreck occurred.

Mr. Nott: I fully accept that from the Under-Secretary, of course. I spoke to a director of B.P. before the Under-Secretary's journey down to Cornwall with the general manager. My question to him was: was it technically feasible to fire the oil, and he thought yes. B.P., I appreciate, issued a statement subsequently saying that it felt that what should be done was that the ship should first be salvaged, or attempts to salvage it should be made, and then firing should be tried. These are two different points. I was referring to whether or not the oil companies thought it technically feasible to fire the ship, which is a slightly different point from that of the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Bessell: I am rather puzzled about one thing, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clear up this point. I understood that he said that he and his hon. Friends had sent telegrams of advice that the ship should be fired. Did he send telegrams of advice that the ship should be fired, or did he advise that consultations should take place with B.P.

and other authorities to ascertain whether firing was feasible?

Mr. Nott: I could give the hon. Gentleman the exact text from my message to the Prime Minister—I have it in a file—but the House would be delayed while I looked for it. However, I asked whether the Government had considered, with the experts and other authorities, the feasibility of firing the "Torrey Canyon" in view of the fact that oil could be consumed while on board the vessel and that if it escaped there would be an unprecedented disaster. That was the nature of the message.
I know that on the Monday—I am sure that the Under-Secretary will confirm this—the Royal Navy in Plymouth was standing by at lunchtime waiting to fire the ship. They told me so themselves. I was in touch with the Navy at Plymouth, and I was told that the Navy was standing by waiting to fire the ship on the third day.

Mr. Foley: This is totally untrue. The Navy was standing by on the Monday morning for a report from our own salvage expert who went on board the vessel on the Monday; In the light of his report the Navy offered every possible assistance from that Monday on in the refloating process.

Mr. Nott: Clearly, I cannot say who it was in the Navy who told me this, but I can only repeat that I was told that aircraft were standing by ready with napalm to go out and fire the ship. I was told by someone who is a member of the Services that the Navy was waiting for the U.S. owners of the vessel to arrive in this country—they were due to arrive on the Monday—and there was then to be a meeting between the Under-Secretary for the Navy and the U.S. owners to discuss the legal aspects of the case. That is what I was told, and I merely state it. I do not in any way question what the Under-Secretary says, but the information that came to me was certainly very different from what he now tells the House.
The tough decision was to fire the ship. But there was an easy option, and that was to try to salvage the ship, to negotiate the international and legal aspects, to discuss the matter with the U.S. owners and then perhaps to play for time and keep the options open.
That was the easy option, and it was the option that the Government took. I say that it was an easy option because it coincided with the wishes of the salvagers and the U.S. owners, and it avoided the risks of a huge explosition on the one hand and of a slow-burning wreck on the other; and I accept that they were risks. Nevertheless. I think that the Government were culpably wrong in taking the easy option. I was on the spot in Cornwall at the time, and I believe that the ship could have been fired, and that if the Government had taken all the expert advice into account that is what would have happened.
On the question of salvaging the vessel, if one sets aside the Dutch salvage experts, who had a huge sum to gain in rewards for trying to salvage the vessel, and the report of the naval salvage expert, who was a Service person and could not be considered independent—[Interruption.] If he was not a member of the Services, he was a member of the Naval Department, was he not?

Mr. Foley: He was a member of the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Nott: So he was a member of the Ministry of Defence, and he drew his pay packet from the Government. I am saying that he was not independent. I am not attributing any motive to the gentleman. I am merely saying that he was not completely independent. Surely this is a perfectly fair statement.
Apart from this, it was perfectly well known that no ships had been salvaged off the Seven Stones for, I think, 60 years. The fishermen who fish these rocks every day of their lives said that there was not a chance of the ship ever being salvaged. Some members of the Government pooh-poohed the fishermen's advice as West country folklore. The Government may consider the views of those fishermen to be folklore, but I am inclined to say that their advice on this score was probably worth taking into account.

Mr. Pardoe: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman's reaction would have been if the Government had taken the advice of the fishermen of St. Ives, against the advice of all the experts, and the operations had gone wrong? What would the hon. Gentleman then have said?

Mr. Nott: But the Government's action went very wrong, and this is now an

inquest into the White Paper. This is what we are here to discuss. I have few fishermen in St. Ives. If the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) would like to come to my constituency, I could introduce him to some of my fishermen in Newlyn.
Finally, the rates quoted at Lloyd's—the people there must surely be the greatest experts in the world at assessing risks—were in themselves sure evidence that Lloyd's thought there was very little chance of the ship ever being salvaged off the Seven Stones.

Dr. John Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the fishermen of Newlyn. Will he not agree that they have just brought back a record catch of fish despite the tale of gloom he recounts to the House?

Mr. Nott: I am absolutely delighted that they have brought back a record catch of fish.
But even suppose a miracle had been achieved and the Government had successfully salvaged this ship, what would they have done with it? They say subsequently in the White Paper that they would have towed it out into the Atlantic. According to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy when he kindly held that Press conference in London on the first Monday, and showed a diagram, half the tanks in the ship were fractured, her hull was torn, and gales were coming up and were predicted for the Thursday and Friday. Can it really be believed that the Government thought it possible to tow the tanker over 1,000 miles into the Atlantic? It would require to be 1,000 miles out for the job to be carried out successfully or else the Gulf Stream would have carried the oil back to the Cornish coast. Do they really think they would have been able to tow this vessel out, even had they managed to get it off the reef?
But look at it from the other side. Suppose the salvage was not likely to succeed. Suppose there was not a high possibility of success. Then I believe the Government were under an obligation to attempt to fire the ship in the early days, because of the consequences of allowing the oil to escape—as eventually it did escape—on the coast, an unprecedented disaster to the poorest county in the country, a county one-third of whose income is derived through tourism.
There is a statement in the White Paper that
Neither financial nor legal considerations inhibited the Government action at any stage.
I find this an astonishing statement because there is a vast amount of prima facie evidence that legal and technical considerations played the most important part in this in the early stages. The Secretary of State for Defence in answering my Private Notice Question, and supplementary questions, on 20th March said:
We are not in a position to be able to set fire to the ship until they"—
that is, representatives of the American company—
give their agreement that this can be done.
Later he said:
As I have said, I hope that it will be decided later this afternoon by the owners whether they wish to go on trying to refloat the ship or whether they would agree that steps should be taken to destroy it and to try to fire the oil aboard. But there are many difficult practical problems as well as legal problems, and I do not wish to go further on that matter.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1967; Vol. 743, cc. 1056–58.]
I would say that this is sufficient prima facie evidence that the Government did take fully into account at an early stage the legal and financial consequences.
I believe the Government made an error of judgment in this case. It was not an easy decision to make. There were dangers in deciding to fire the ship in the early days. I am surprised, however, as were journalists covering the story, that having attempted unsuccessfully to salvage her on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, when the Government knew that gales were coming, they did not at that later stage attempt to fire the ship.
The other astounding aspect of the matter is that Sir Solly Zuckerman and his team of scientific advisers called together by the Government did not make their tests into whether Kuwait oil would burn until—I think it was—Easter Sunday. The ship went aground on Saturday, 18th March. It was not until Sunday, 26th March, that tests were carried out on this oil in London to see if it would burn. The Home Secretary was reported as saying that the test was successful. I believe he said that all but 1 per cent. of the oil was consumed. Why was it,

if the Government were considering all the options and alternatives, that they did not take steps with experiments into the firing of this Kuwait oil until Easter Day, Sunday, 26th March?
There are many questions to be answered on this. The White Paper does not answer them. I fully appreciate the problems and difficulties of the Government, but they should have been prepared for pollution. They were warned. I believe myself that their decision-making was at fault, and I believe they should be censured for it.

5.55 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has a very real constituency interest in this issue. His speech has shown the House how involved and committed he has been, and I should certainly like to pay tribute as a fellow West Country Member to him for his interest in this matter and express agreement with him in his wish to see his constituents' interests preserved. I can understand that he feels very strongly and is also, possibly, critical of the Government because of his interest that the oil should have been cleared away before it came to the shores of his constituency, but I think that he has tended to veer into the dangerous field of being wise after the event.
I know that the hon. Member has documented his advice to the Prime Minister, but I think the point was really made in an interjection, that it is very easy now, looking back, to choose the different course, to talk about Lloyds underwriters, and to talk about fishermen's advice. If after a failure to bomb the ship and after allowing the oil to spread along the coastline, and having used those two reasons as their criteria, the Home Secretary or the Minister for Housing and Local Government would have been laughed out of this House, and quite rightly so, had they acted on such advice then. The Ministers' job was to get the best technical advice.
This debate is beginning to centre around what is essentially a technical judgment. I do not quibble about this, and the House tonight is going to pass a Motion which will refer the judgment to a Select Committee of this House, which I think is right. We would hope to have all the evidence and expertise which has been assembled, and to assemble the evidence in order to draw conclusions for


the future from the past. I am a member of that Select Committee, and I hope that it will be possible for me to be on the sub-committee which looks into this. I am not going to prejudge the issue by going into the question very far now, but I think we should try to question whether there has been any political judgment here, because that is our main job today.
The Government would have been extremely inept if, in deciding whether to salvage the vessel, they had not taken expert advice. It is a very true point that the Dutch salvage people had an interest in this matter. I am sure that when the hon. Member for St. Ives talked about the advice given by the Service salvage expert he did not wish to imply what his words certainly seemed to imply—that he was not really independent. The fact that that expert was in the Ministry of Defence surely did not mean that he would have been prejudiced in his advice. This was not a British ship. Surely, this was probably the best independent advice available to the Government at the time. I think this needs to be said quite clearly, that that advice— it may have been wrong—should have been sought by the Government and due weight should have been attached to it.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy who, I know, from the very start kept West Country Members of Parliament informed about the situation, and certainly when I attended a briefing we did discuss this issue and we looked at the ship on the Seven Stones, where she seemed very firmly lodged, I must confess that I agreed with what he said. I am not myself a great expert on this, it seems to me that it was clear at that stage that the question whether to bomb the ship and to fire the oil was one which called for technical advice and the Government were acting on the best technical advice available. To my mind, the answers he gave as to the reasons why he thought that they could salvage the ship then seemed reasonable. It was clear to us all at that meeting that the Minister had taken the best advice, and most of us felt that this was the right course to take.
Looking back with the benefit of hindsight and much more information, it may be said that we should have come to an-

other decision, but we cannot make this into a criticism of political judgment. The question of political judgment would have arisen if the Government had decided to flout international law in order to save the beaches. Some Members feel that this should have been done. I am extremely concerned about paragraph 6 of the White Paper which says that:
Neither legal or financial considerations inhibited Government action …
I read this to mean that the Government, having taken all due advice, took the decision irrespective of legal and financial considerations only because those considerations did not intrude. I hope, however, that the Government would take notice of legal implications in the normal course of events. I reject utterly the attitude that because one's own shores are affected one can flout international law. It is absolute nonsense.
I also find bitterly distasteful some journalists' comments on these events, inciting the Government to do what they liked irrespective of international law. The Government are committed to uphold international law. If, in some cases, we feel bound to go against international law, those cases are matters of political judgment, but in normal circumstances we should take every consideration, international and financial, into account. I hope that paragraph 6 does not mean that the Government did not consider international law; I hope that it means that the action the Government took was quite independent of the financial and legal implications.

Mr. Peter Mills: Surely the hon. Member will agree that if the situation had occurred off the coast of Miami the American authorities would have come to a firm decision to fire the ship straight away, and would have flouted international law—and in that case would have been quite right, as we would have been.

Dr. Owen: The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) has no evidence for that purely hypothetical argument. I hope that the Americans would not have done this. I believe that they have respect for international law, just as we have. What the hon. Member has said is just the sort of jingoism that has been going around, as expressed in the correspondence columns of The Times in such terms as, "Am I alone in wondering what


Churchill would have done?" I hope that Churchill would have taken note of international law, just as any other statesman should. The hon. Member has no evidence that the Americans would have fired this ship if this incident had occurred off Miami.

Mr. Mills: Of course the Americans would.

Dr. Owen: The hon. Member says "Of course they would", but he has no evidence. If they did so they were not taking international law into consideration, and they would be extremely foolish. So would this Government have been. It would have been a political judgment. If, having taken such a decision, the Government had been proved wrong, the House could well have argued about it.
I suggest, however, that this was a technical judgment, based on the best technical advice. I do not want to pursue that aspect. It is pointless to do so. The most important thing at the moment is to make sure that the West Country is not adversely affected by what has happened over the last few weeks. I cannot stress enough to the House and the country that there has been gross exaggeration of the extent of the pollution. I concede that we were in a very difficult position. The West Country is a long way from London, and the people on the spot at the time had to mobilise Government action rapidly. The natural tendency was to make this into something of a great disaster.
I do not want to minimise the seriousness of the disaster to those towns and beaches which have been polluted, but a picture has been put round that the whole West Country is submerged in oil. That is nonsense. It needs to be said again and again that those beaches which were most heavily polluted have in many cases since been completely cleared. That is the fact that we want to get across to the country at large. Having spent ten days enjoying the splash of headlines about the beaches and the extent of the pollution, the Press ought now to spend a little time painting a proper picture of the present situation, and the situation as it will be, we hope, in the next three or four weeks. There is no reason why anybody should postpone a holiday in the West Country because of

oil pollution, The battle of the beaches, as it has been called, has been largely won.
Here I want to pay tribute to some other people, namely, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his colleagues, who have done a great deal for the West Country. This fact is accepted by West Countrymen of all political parties. Considerable anxiety has been felt in the West Country because this subject has been brought into the political arena. The general feeling in the West Country is that, given the limitations of the facilities available for mounting a major operation of this kind, involving many Ministries, the Government acted rapidly. Great concern has been felt for civil servants who have been criticised, but who have given up their holidays, as have Ministers and Service men, to help the West Country. The West Country is extremely grateful.
I urge the Government to carry this help a stage further, in a positive way, and not in any way to cut off now financial help, especially to the tourist trade. I know that many suggestions have been made to my right hon. Friend with the idea of promoting the realisation throughout the country that this pollution is not as bad as has been suggested, and that a more optimistic picture should be put out. Practical suggestions have been made, such as the production or a film showing the beaches as they were when polluted and then being cleared by Service men and volunteers and, later, showing them completely cleared. It has been suggested that the film should be in colour and sent round the world. We must not forget that tourists from all over the world, not least from America, come to the West Country. Such a film would be of great benefit, and I hope that it can be made.
Another suggestion is that all tourist and travel agencies should have available brochures showing that the Cornish beaches are clean and that there is no need to postpone a holiday, thereby generating a more optimistic picture. Nothing could have done more to help the West Country than the picture of three girls bathing in the sea, taken a few days after the pollution arrived on the beaches. We should be grateful for a few more such pictures.
The situation in the West Country has been very difficult. Many of the workers


there have had to make do with equipment which was not specifically designed for the job. There has been a great voluntary spirit and the Government have helped considerably, both financially and in kind.
The Opposition should be careful about making this into a political issue. We should examine the problem and learn from it. It may be that a similar disaster will happen again, although I hope not. We must resolve that if such a thing ever happens again adequate preparation will have been made and the necessary material and expertise will be able to go in instantly. I suggest that the Government should consider delegating one Minister with overall responsibility for this sort of thing.
I hope that the Natural Environment Research Council, which has a fairly considerable establishment in Plymouth, will look into the question of pollution. We know that it is looking into the effects on marine life, which are long-term and probably most important of all, but I hope that we shall carry on adequate research long after this disaster has been forgotten, and shall show a determination to ensure that adequate preparation is made for any next time. Perhaps the Select Committee on Science and Technology can make its contribution to achieving this end.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) described himself as one of the two Members of Parliament representing constituencies most likely to be damaged by oil. I can describe myself as one of the two Members of Parliament representing constituencies which were seriously damaged by oil. The constituency which was most damaged was that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I think that my northern coastline is longer than that of my neighbour in Falmouth and Camborne. It was the north coast of Cornwall that received a good deal of the damage.
However that may be, I agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) that there has been much exaggeration of the amount of damage and its continuance. In fact, the beaches

have been cleared to a large extent. Nobody need cancel his holiday because he fears that beaches in the West Country are polluted.
I understand that this disaster is to be the subject of a further inquiry. Everyone must agree that the White Paper gives a detailed explanation of what was done by the authorities and why, and also of why a number of other things were not done, including a suggestion which I made at a very early stage. I was the first person to ask a question in the House about the possibility of off-loading the oil. It is possible to argue about whether the decisions taken by the Government were the right ones or were taken in the right order, but no one can complain that the White Paper does not give an explanation as to why the decisions were taken and why others were not taken.
I was glad to hear that this matter is to be further considered, not only by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, but also that the legal aspects are to be studied, particularly with regard to international law. One point which has not been explained in any of the newspapers or in the House is how it is possible for any ship, with every modern navigational aid, to run into such a well-known hazard as the Seven Stones in daylight when that well-known hazard is guarded by a lightship which claims to have given the ship warning. Various explanations have been tentatively suggested in the Press. One is that perhaps the "Torrey Canyon" was obstructed by fishing vessels, changed course, and could not get back on course. Whatever the cause, if a ship is not able to manœuvre in a channel seven miles wide, something is seriously wrong. Either its steering apparatus is insufficient or it was going too fast.
I agree wholeheartedly that consideration should be given to the question of having speed limits in dangerous waters. Consideration should be given inter nationally to this question. If large ships cannot manœuvre at high speed, consideration should be given to placing some limitation on the speed at which they travel. I am more familiar with transport by road and rail. For many years there have been speed limits on the railways and on the roads in circumstances where unlimited speed would be dangerous.

Dr. Bennett: What about in the air?

Mr. Wilson: I do not know about that. I suppose that in certain cases there are limits on landing speeds.
Further study should be devoted to the question of what can be done about off-loading stranded tankers. We have had an explanation of why that could not be done in this case. Are we satisfied that in the general run of cases tankers are so constructed or have the necessary equipment to remove the oil, if other circumstances permit, in the case of stranding?
The White Paper admits that much the best way of preventing oil pollution is to prevent oil from getting into the sea. However, if a tanker is stranded, what can be done? Have we mobile pumps, or a rescue tanker with the necessary pumps, to pump the oil out of a stranded vessel? Is there another method by which oil could be transported at sea which would not be so dangerous as putting it into very large tankers but which would have the advantage of volume which is claimed for the large tankers? I have in mind the idea of a sectional ship which has been canvassed by a Liverpool firm. Most Members of Parliament will have received documents from the firm on this matter. If a sectional ship had gone aground on the Seven Stones, the undamaged part could easily have been towed away.
Further consideration must also be given to how oil which has got on to the water can be dealt with. This question will be considered by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. We have been told that oil is difficult to burn or disperse. We are told that the most effective way is to spray it with detergents, as was done. We have been told that this does not do any damage to fish. This we are glad to hear. Some doubts have been expressed as to what will happen to shellfish. Oysters in the West Country are a substantial crop, worth about £1 million a year. If the spillage of oil, or if oil which has been dispersed by detergents, causes damage to oysters, this is a matter which should be further considered with a view to ascertaining what could be done to prevent such damage from occurring if another spillage occurs, which is almost certain to happen. If detergents are

not satisfactory and if a boom does not work, how are we to protect the oyster beds in the South-West or, indeed, in any other part of the country from such pollution?
I raised in a question to the Prime Minister the matter of the cost of the remedial measures. The Government have promised a grant to local authorities. I questioned whether this would not be rather a hardship on inland ratepayers who might be called upon to contribute a 2d. rate towards the cost of oil dispersal. In a major disaster like this, local ratepayers may not have any serious objection, but if oil pollution is to become a feature which we are likely to meet again and again I think that ratepayers will have some objection if they are called upon to make a contribution towards a service from which they are gaining no more benefit than any other taxpayer. Consideration must be given to the question how the cost of any permanent service for the dispersal of oil should be met without its falling on local authorities.
Although the oil menace is serious, it has been exaggerated in this case. Fortunately, we have to a large extent cleared the pollution. With the increasing quantities of oil in use, it will become more and more of a menace.
Perhaps this disaster may have been a blessing in disguise in that it has drawn attention to the seriousness of the matter, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives pointed out, has concerned the West Country for a long time and which we have pressed should be dealt with further. I hope that the matters which have arisen in this case will give us all an opportunity to look further into the questions which it raises and that, after the necessary advice has been received from the Select Committee and the other bodies to which the Government have referred various considerations, we shall implement proposals which will mitigate the damage which any future disaster could cause.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I am very glad to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), who is my neighbour and who, as everyone on both sides will agree, has, as usual, made a constructive and objective


contribution to the debate—a great deal more constructive and a great deal more sensible than the contribution which we had from the Opposition Front Bench.
I appreciate how much my colleagues representing Cornish constituences have worked during the past three weeks. I have been particularly fortunate. My constituency is the only one in Cornwall where no oil has so far appeared on the beaches as a result of the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon", and I hope that this condition will prevail throughout the summer. But I know that the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and other Cornish hon. Members who have spoken in the debate so far have suffered severely, and I am delighted to learn today that the situation is now so well under control.
There are many aspects of the matter which we should like to debate, but no great benefit is to be gained from going over past ground. I shall touch briefly on one or two aspects of responsibility, but, first, I take the question of the manner in which this ship was crewed. I find it impossible to believe that a ship of this size, carrying such a valuable as well as such a toxic cargo, can have been properly skippered if she managed, in relatively calm conditions, to run aground on the Seven Stones. In my view, there is a question here to be put to the Italian maritime authority about the issuing of captains' certificates. It seems to me that, if a vessel of this kind can be chartered by a company, can be registered in Liberia, a country which has no real resources, and can then be crewed by a crew which, obviously, could not have been competent to deal with the ship, there is a matter to be investigated at international level.
Then, too, there must be some responsibility on the owners of the ship, moral if not legal, for engaging a crew which appeared to be totally inefficient.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, perhaps he will be a little careful in saying "moral if not legal". Surely, it is a clear principle of law that one is responsible to see that the contractors whom one employs are fit and proper persons for the employment which one seeks to impose as their duty.

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that strengthens the point I was making. Clearly, there must be some legal responsibility. No doubt, the Government are looking into that and we shall hear more about it later.
I feel that the owners of the cargo, British Petroleum—I have said this before and I do not hesitate to repeat it—showed indecent haste in their anxiety to disclaim any moral or legal responsibility. The fact remains that it was their cargo being carried from a port in the Middle East to their own refineries in South Wales. I think that they had at least a moral responsibility—I hope that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet will accept this—if not a legal responsibility to ensure that a cargo of this sort passing the shores of Britain was carried by a ship which was properly registered and properly skippered. There is every reason to suppose that neither of those conditions was fulfilled.

Sir John Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in international shipping, each of the owners of a mixed cargo, who may number 1,000, has a moral responsibility for how the ship is controlled?

Mr. Bessell: I said nothing of the kind, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I did not. I referred to a specific cargo, the cargo of the "Torrey Canyon". I referred to British Petroleum. I made no suggestion about mixed cargo. A large toxic cargo of this kind is very different from a mixed cargo.
The question of flags of convenience has been referred to many times. There are many who will disagree with me about it, I know, but I think that the Prime Minister was right to raise the question. I do not regard it as a red herring. I regard it as a matter closely pertinent to this whole subject, and I consider that we should look carefully into the question of ships being registered in countries which, obviously, are unable to meet any obligation to us or to any other Power when a disaster of this sort occurs. I hope that the British Government will look into the matter at international level and that it will be the subject of discussion between us and other nations.
I come now to the question which has been debated so much today, the question of what action should have been taken when the ship foundered. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) when he says that we can all be wise after the event. It may well be that the fishermen of Newlyn were right. It may well be that some of the expert opinion which was thrust upon me and other Members representing constituencies in the South-West, day and night, by telephone, by letter and by telegram, was right. But, even if it was right, the Government would have been mad to accept it. Clearly, the Government responsibility was to accept the recognised technical advice available to them, the advice of the Royal Navy and of people competent to deal with the salvaging of ships, and to consider the legal considerations as well, which I do not discount for a moment, as the ship was outside territorial waters.
The Government had to weigh these things in the balance and, if they had taken any action which had discounted those important considerations, the Opposition today would have slayed them, and rightly so. To pretend now that the Government should have acted upon the advice of the fishermen of any particular part of Cornwall or upon the advice received from people far removed from the scene of the accident is, to my mind, quite irresponsible.
I come now to the only criticism which I make. There were three possibilities. One was to refloat the ship. The expert advice, including that of British Petroleum, apparently, was that this should be attempted and that firing should be attempted only if refloating failed. This should be put on record because there has been confusion about it in the debate today. The second question was whether she could have been unloaded. I have never been entirely satisfied by the answers given to the hon. Member for Truro, the first hon. Member to raise the question of unloading the cargo.
If I have one point of criticism, it is this. If it was possible to put salvage teams aboard, if it was possible to put compressors aboard and to put compressed air into the compartments in the hope of creating the bubble, about which

the Parliamentary Secretary told us at one of our briefings, to enable the ship to be refloated off the rocks, it must, surely, have been possible to have some kind of apparatus aboard the ship in order to get away at least a large part of the cargo. This in itself could only have helped to lighten the vessel and, possibly, assist in the process of refloating. That is one matter that the Committee should examine very carefully.
Next, there is the question of the decision to fire the ship. We heard from the Secretary of State for the Home Department this afternoon about all the considerations that had to be taken into account, and we have also heard the Prime Minister speak about this. I still believe that on balance it was right to take the decisions to attempt to refloat her and eventually, when that became impossible, to fire her by the means at the Government's disposal at that time.
The question remains whether it would have been possible to fit charges to her when she was still in one piece, and thus make firing easier. I do not know whether that could have been done, and I doubt whether any right hon. or hon. Member can say with certainty what would have been the right course. Again, it was a matter of the Government to accept the judgment of the experts, and if that judgment was wrong, that is not the Government's responsibility.
I now turn to the question of the actions taken to prevent pollution. I join the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in paying tribute to the work of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, which was prompt, efficient and effective. I also pay tribute to the work of the local authorities. I am naturally biased towards those in my constituency, which worked together so willingly, accepted all the suggestions made to them by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and others, and acted upon them promptly. They made every conceivable preparation to meet a disaster, which, happily, did not occur in my consituency although, alas, it occurred elswhere, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives. He will agree with me that the work of the local authorities in Cornwall has been exemplary in this matter.
In addition, we should not forget the work of the fire services, not only of Cornwall, but those which came so readily from other parts of the country, and the work of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which was remarkable. It was done on a voluntary basis and was a contribution to the overall work carried out in Cornwall.
I confess that at my first meeting with the Minister of Housing and Local Government I felt some anxiety about what had happened in the previous week. But after the meeting on 28th March it would be wrong to say that the Government did not act fast. To use the expression I used last week, their actions were dynamic. Clear written instructions were sent out to the local authorities that day. There was clear direction on matters affecting booms, detergent, supplies of detergent, and everything else from that day onwards.
I pay tribute to the tireless efforts of the Minister of Housing and Local Government during that week. I speak for my constituents and, I believe, the vast majority of people of all political opinions in Cornwall when I say that we deeply appreciate the personal concern he showed, and which was so obvious to all of us who had contact with him during those days. I also pay tribute to his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. Whenever I telephoned he readily answered, and he dealt with all the queries I sent him with an expedition that is an example to any Government. The organisation under their control and the Command at Plymouth appeared to me to work efficiently and well and that is also true of the headquarters at Truro. I cannot speak for Exeter since I have no contact with it.
Within 48 hours of the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman I felt that the Government were completely on top of the whole organisation for dealing with any emergencies. I also agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East that we had very good fortune concerning the winds. The prevailing north-westerly was unusual at that time of the year, but it would be stupid to pretend that it is unique. It has happened many times. I do not know how much time the right hon. Gentleman has spent in the West Country. I have lived there all my life. I have lived in Cornwall for the past 12

or 14 years, and before that in Devon. I assure him that a north-westerly wind is not a freak occurrence, but I agree that if we had had a south-westerly, which is generally the prevailing wind, it would have been disastrous. We were fortunate to that extent, but I also believe that the work which had been done to prevent serious oil pollution would have been sufficient to meet any emergency, certainly after the first 10 days.
There has been too much drama about the whole matter—too much drama in today's debate, too many attempts to find little things to criticise. I do not believe that that reflects the feeling of the people of the West Country. The most objective speech, which best reflected the feelings of the people of Cornwall, was made by the hon. Member for Truro.
Now we look to the future. Oil pollution is an old problem. It was right for the hon. Member for St. Ives to point out that the Government have been very dilatory in this matter. He and I have raised this matter, and my predecessor as Member for Bodmin, Sir Douglas Marshall, raised it many times when the Conservative Party were in office. But nothing was done. I hope that now we shall see dynamic action in the matter. This problem has caused grave anxiety to local authorities, which lack the resources to clear the beaches and are prevented by statute from spending more than a limited sum of money for that purpose.
It is very important, therefore, that we should have continuous action in the matter. I should like to see the appointment of a Minister to co-ordinate the services in the event of any disaster of this kind occurring in the future. We should have a blueprint available for local authorities to meet any form of massive pollution which might occur.
There is a need for tightening international control on shipping. I agree with the hon. Member for Truro about limitation of speed. We have it on land and in the air, and that suggestion should be-examined.
This was an unprecedented situation, and it is no use pretending that anything that happened in the past could have given any clue to the Government as to the actions they should take in it. On behalf of my constituents, I repeat my thanks to the Government for their action. It may well be that it should have been


different in the first few days. I do not know, and I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member is qualified to say; only the experts can decide that issue. Concerning the actual danger, I believe that the work done was adequate and is appreciated by everyone associated with it.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology will have a tough task. I hope that this overworked Committee will be allowed to increase its membership and, if necessary, appoint a sub-committee to deal with the subject. I hope that there will be proper facilities for the chairman to do his work effectively, because an inquiry of this sort is likely to be long drawn-out and will need to be exhaustive.
There has been an atmosphere of party politics in this debate and I regret it. I do not believe that there could be a worse contamination in Cornwall in the summer months which lie ahead than the contamination of political parties seeking to take advantage of what was, after all, a great tragedy, one which was dealt with as best it could be within the limited knowledge available to the Government at the time. I hope that we can work together to ensure that nothing like this occurs in future and that, if it does, we shall tackle it as we have tackled it so far in Cornwall—on a none-party basis.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Oscar Murton: Having listened with great interest to the debate, I feel that one of the lessons the House should take to heart is that there should be some restriction on sea lanes and shipping routes round our coasts. From Press reports of preliminary inquiries, there appears to have been something very wrong with the course on which the "Torrey Canyon" was bound. It has been reported that it was a question of drift. To those of us who have navigated small boats, drift is a matter of some anxiety. When one is handling a ship of this size, a little more competent navigation should be involved.
I would have thought that if the captain—and this has only been reported—did realise that he was off course, he should have taken immediate steps to rectify the matter. As it is, this was a great tragedy. It could well, but for the

mercy of Providence, have been an even greater one. But we have to remember, when we talk about lethal and toxic cargoes, that, as technology advances, we are shortly to be faced with the additional problem of nuclear-propelled ships. Should one of these ships in certain circumstances be stranded near our coast there would be the most frightful disaster, not only interfering with the livelihood or general happiness of our people and entailing large loss of wild life, but possibly causing the loss of human life. A country should have a very strict say about the navigation of large ships around its coasts, even when they are outside territorial waters. As I have pointed out, nuclear-propelled ships carrying toxic cargoes may in future come near our shores.
There is only one point on which I would like to have taken issue with the Home Secretary had he been present now. It is on the question of what I consider to be the inevitable conflict of interest of the salvors on the one hand and the Government on the other. Paragraph 10 of the White Paper states categorically:
Until the ship broke up the best professional advice available to the Government was that, although the chances of refloating were not as high as the salvors believed, this course still held possibilities of success.
As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman said something entirely different today. I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will take up this point and tell us whether there was a conflict of interest and, if not, why paragraph 10 suggests that possibly there was.
With all due respect, 118,000 tons dead weight striking a reef at 17 knots and tearing a hole of 100 ft. in a ship's bottom makes for permanent stranding. I am no expert, but we have read of the various problems which had to be faced by the experts and one would have thought that some success might have been found through the adoption of the process of what one can call "explosive surgery". If a charge could have been put round that part which was stranded it might well have broken up the ship and the portion of it not stranded might have been towed away at an early stage.
We have been told that this could not possibly be done because of the danger of an explosion. On the other hand, when the ship did break up and the oil


began to flow the broken ends of the ship must have been grinding together. Sparks must have been generated. But there was no explosion.
It has been suggested that the unfortunate death of that gallant Dutchman might have been caused by an explosion of oil, but I understand that it was to do with the compressed air equipment put on the ship. I understand that this caused the explosion and not the gaseous nature of the oil. I am open to contradiction. It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows this fact and whether this accident was something to do with the compression equipment.
Paragraph 12 says that the Government
… were making arrangements to buy out the salvors if the ship was refloated…
I cannot help but feel that rather than negotiate, contrary to what certain hon. Members opposite have said, the Government should have acted ruthlessly because it was a matter of grave emergency. They should have taken the matter into their own hands from the outset. This was a job for the Royal Navy, and I consider that the naval salvage experts should have taken over at once and that the question of compensation for the cargo and the remains of the ship should have been discussed afterwards. This was an operational matter affecting the sea lanes of the country and the Navy should have had full and unfettered control of the situation.

Mr. Bessell: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that when a disaster of this sort occurs outside territorial waters we should take action clearly in breach of international law?

Mr. Murton: I am not a lawyer. But if I were laced with taking a decision, I would take it and damn the consequences if a situation arose where people's lives or even livelihoods were in danger. Fortunately, by a change in the prevailing wind, there has not been too much loss financially to the inshore fishermen of the west coast.
I hope that if loss is proved, the Government will consider compensation for these men whose livelihood depends upon inshore fishing. The Government must also press on with their research in depth into the effect this accident has had on the wild life, both flora and fauna. We must

see what effect the oil and the detergent have had upon marine life and what harm has been done to birds and may be done within the coming months.
I am told on inquiry that three species of the auk—the guillemot, the razor-bill and the puffin—have suffered much. As a species they are already in decline because of the predatory nature of gulls and other birds, and also because of the previous effects they have suffered from oil. If the disaster to them is of the magnitude which experts think—already 7,000 such birds have been treated—it could mean that this species will be greatly depleted for many years to come. Many of them are also being found suffering from detergent poisoning quite apart from the effects of the oil.
We must say that we are extremely thankful that the wind changed and that the oil has drifted away. I wish to pay tribute to all those who have fought so hard to mitigate the disaster.
It could have been very much worse. In Poole Harbour there are 100 miles of landlocked coastline, composed of saltings and mud flats. So far scientists have been unable to find any means of decontaminating them. It would have been an irreparable disaster for the wild life in the harbour, for those who sail in it and those who live round its shores.
Poole obtained a boom to put across the harbour mouth, but because the current flowing into the harbour reaches six knots at various stages of the tide it would have been impossible for any boom to withstand it. The boom cost £15,000 and cannot be used for its original purpose. We are hoping and praying that the oil does not come to our harbour. The various estuaries and inlets round the coast could be seriously affected by such a disaster.
I urge the Government not to let up and to use this as a lesson. It was something which came out of the blue and was very nearly a disaster. It has caused us much trouble, particularly those who have been directly affected. Mercifully it has not spread as far as it was once thought it might do. The Government must go into all these matters; they must investigate the question of international law, and the restriction of large ships sailing in some channels round our coasts. They should go into the question of strandings of this nature and the technical


problems arising. Let us be forewarned and prepared, so that if such an occasion occurs again we are able to cope with it.

6.50 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: Even if I had not heard the damning evidence given by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) about complacency and even indifference by members of the Government before this unhappy episode, I would still have been critical of the Home Secretary's speech. It was too optimistic and complacent. What for the time being saved the Government's bacon was the strong north-westerly winds which blew for a considerable and unusual duration after 24th March, and more recently the north-easterly winds that followed.
The Home Secretary and members of the Government have only to look at what is happening on the north-west coast of France and to draw the inference. The oil which might have swept up the Channel and contaminated our coasts has gone over the Channel and is causing damage to our next-door neighbour. The Home Secretary was too optimistic about the cleansing of the beaches and the rocks, and about the upset to the balance of nature. It will be many months before we know the outcome of that. We know that the effect on sea birds at the beginning of their breeding season has been most serious. About 7,000 have been cleansed—how many have died we cannot guess.
In this connection I must mention two constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Risdon, who have a great experience of birds kept in captivity and are providing facilities in conjunction with the R.S.P.C.A. They are providing a sanatorium for birds recovering from the cleansing process and awaiting return to their proper home. In mentioning those who have been helping, one ought to mention the honourable name of the R.S.P.C.A., the many volunteers who have done such good work in the area, and also the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, which has sent to those coasts its mobile veterinary units to give all possible help.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton. (Dr. David Owen) said that if any

criticism lies here it is a criticism of technical judgment. Governments have to make technical judgments. It will be some time before we can be sure whether the technical judgment was right in this case. The hon. Member for Sutton was quite wrong when he said that the battle of the beaches is, to a large extent, over now. I shall be very pleased if he is proved to be right, but unfortunately the persistence of the oil and our past experience have proved that it is not quickly overcome.
From the word "go", the Government took far too much for granted. Marine salvage organisations are always optimistic—they would not be in business if they were not so. This is particularly true in the case of those operating on a "no cure, no pay" basis. When it is said that the Navy Department salvage expert was on board in company with these Dutch experts—and I want to say nothing to decry their technical ability and expertise, they are well known to be some of the world's greatest experts in this sphere—it is obvious that if the Navy expert discussed the problem with these men in an atmosphere of optimism he would not be a very human person if his ideas were not coloured by that optimism.
Too great store was set on that. It should have been realised from the start that a ship of that size, running at that speed upon a hazard of that nature, had very little chance indeed of being salvaged. In any case, salvage is a question of prolonged good weather when dealing with a ship and a cargo of this size. Such good weather is never to be expected in that quarter and at that time of the equinox. Lloyd's underwriters never rated the chances of salvaging the "Torrey Canyon" very highly according to Mr. Anthony Grove, Chairman of Lloyd's Register of Shipping, as reported in The Times.
In this case the Government's view was:
… that the best action would have been to tow the ship into mid-Atlantic, if possible beyond fishing grounds and the influence of the Gulf Stream, and to sink her.
It seems somewhat naive to suggest that this was the best action—a hypothetical, theoretical solution at the very best, but quite impracticable with a ship of this size, heavily aground on a hazard of that nature and with so much in her hull, very


badly holed in several places. Even it she was towed off the rocks, the hazards and difficulties of towing her for a long distance would be enormous. If the effort had been successful, and she had been towed into mid-Atlantic or near mid-Atlantic, she would have been a source of leaking and seeping oil for many months up-wind and up-current from the British Isles.
The Prime Minister's remarks about flags of convenience were perhaps deliberately unspecific. The ships sailing under these colours are often A.1 at Lloyd's, well built, well found and well maintained. However, their standards of manning have sometimes been open to doubt. Whether the number of crew is adequate, whether they are adequately trained and disciplined in the sense of seamanship and marine skills have been questionable. Any seaman has grave doubts about what a ship of such a size was doing in such a place, on such a course and at such a speed. If the weather was thick at the time of the disaster it was no—

It being Seven o'clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), further Proceeding stood postponed.

ADEN

7.0 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Some hon. Members might have thought that it would be better to have a full day's debate on Aden later. The Opposition thought that the facts in Aden speak for themselves, that on any account they are dangerous, and that as the noble Lord Lord Shackleton was due to go to Aden immediately, it was essential that the House should be given a clearer picture of his directive and his political objectives than any which the Foreign Secretary has been able to give up to now.
The immediate occasion for this Motion was the abrupt withdrawal of the United Nations three-man Mission to Aden. I doubt whether the House would wish to waste much more time on what, on any account, was a deplorable and totally depressing episode. To say that—and I hope that hon. Members opposite, in particular, will recognise this—is not to suggest, as some of them suggested at Question Time today, that the Conservatives are hostile to any rôle for the United Nations in Aden. I will explain why I say this.
As Prime Minister, and again as Leader of the Opposition, I made a proposal, which was that the United Nations should be invited to define the frontiers between the Yemen and the Aden Federation and that United Nations observers should be placed on that defined frontier to prevent infiltration from the Yemen into South Arabia. Therefore, we are not against a suitable United Nations presence. After all, the Federation is anxious for United Nations membership.
But we are most emphatically against the kind of prejudices revealed by the Committee of 24 and the kind of biased statements made by the three members of the present Mission who have just returned from Aden. If the Foreign Secretary is still thinking in terms of some kind of United Nations activity or presence in Aden, let it be by way of a considered resolution through the Security Council, which is the proper place where such matters should be decided, and do not let him accept again some delegates from the Committee of 24.
There can be no doubt that the events of the last week have left a situation in Aden of uncertainty and danger which can be ended only by a much clearer statement of Government policy, with the British Government making it clear that from now on they will take responsible charge of the situation. The first part of any such statement must be this. It must concern the Government's intention about the maintenance of law and order and the protection of Adeni and British lives. Disorder is always greatest when there is uncertainty about the resolution of the responsible Power. In Aden Colony at present there is complete uncertainty about the objectives and aims of the British Government.
I take it that the House can be assured that there are enough troops in Aden today to maintain order. But the House has another duty. The Government have a programme of withdrawal, and we are told that it will continue exactly as planned until the end of the year, when South Arabia gets its independence. May we have from the Foreign Secretary a description of the timetable of the withdrawal of troops, and will he tell us how it is proposed that terrorism should be held in check in the last months before independence, because that date is now getting very near?
This must involve—I am sorry; I have lost my place—

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): Not for the first time.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman will get very little satisfaction now that I have found my place.
This must involve—and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will confirm that this is so—detailed consultation on a programme of withdrawal with Federal Ministers and a date by which the Federal Government will resume responsibility for internal security. If there is to be a transfer, the House wishes to know the timetable by which British troops will be withdrawn and when the Federal troops will take over. There cannot be a gap, a hiatus, left. If the British troops are to go, somebody must take over. We take it, therefore, that the Federal troops and police will be responsible for internal security.
This leads me to another question. When my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) asked the Foreign Secretary about the independence date and whether that date held for early 1968, the right hon. Gentleman did not give a firm answer, nor on another occasion did the Minister of State, and nor did the Secretary of State for Defence during the defence debate. We should like to know this evening whether the date of 1968 for independence is flexible. Could it be brought forward? Could it be put back?
My next range of questions to the Foreign Secretary concerns Lord Shackle-ton's instructions and the political objectives for the future of South Arabia. Is he to co-operate fully with the Federal Ministers against the day when they take over political responsibility? Whenever he has been faced with this question, the Foreign Secretary has taken refuge in an attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). But I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with those tactics any longer. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman can answer for himself. He needs no protection. All that he has to do is to issue a statement whenever he makes a speech.
The reason why the Foreign Secretary cannot be allowed to get away with these tactics any longer is this. Socialist Ministers have been dealing with the Federal Ministers for 2½ years. Presumably, then, they accept the right hon. Gentleman's conception of a Federal solution to the South Arabian and Aden problem. I hope that the Government will confirm that this is so. Surely they must recognise that it is inconceivable that Aden and the mainland States should go by separate paths. That makes, for example, geographical nonsense. Anyhow, if the Foreign Secretary has an alternative to offer to the Federal solution, this debate is a spendid opportunity for him to tell us about it. We want to know whether he has an alternative.
It is not good enough for the Government constantly to attack the proposals of the Conservative Government—and, incidentally, to misrepresent them—but never come forward with an alternative of their own. If they have no plan, and if the Foreign Secretary is unable to announce a firm plan tonight, then we must


assume that Lord Shackleton will deal with the Federal Ministers. Anything which he can do to bring the various elements in Aden Colony and in the Federation closer together will be to the good. But I hope that the Foreign Secretary this evening will make it plain that the present Federal Government is the foundation on which he as Foreign Secretary and his Government are building the future of South Arabia.
Finally, it is as well to repeat the Conservative solution, because it has been misrepresented so often by hon. Members opposite. It was independence by 1968; it was to entrust the internal security of the Federation and of Aden to the Federal Government; it was to accompany those measures by a defence treaty, not limitless in time, but to be effective—and this is the essential point—until the Federation itself could make itself secure. That was a coherent policy.

Mr. George Brown: When was that expected to be?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am coming to that, if the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience.
Lest the right hon. Gentleman should say once again that we had no commitment to a defence treaty, I must repeat that this pledge was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham with the full authority of the Cabinet of the day. Lest he might repeat that we were committed only to a conference—which is the line which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends take—let him pause and consider before he takes that line again that, if he takes it again, he must let us off our commitment to independence by 1968, because that was an essential part of the same document. He cannot have one half and not the other. Independence in 1968 and a defence treaty to accompany independence were an essential part of our policy. Because the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been dealing with Federal Ministers all this time, I want to know whether that is still their policy.
Therefore, once again, as I did a fortnight ago, I ask the Foreign Secretary to look at the prospect of a weak—

Mr. George Brown: I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the Conservatives had given this promise

which he now says—and this is the first time that I have heard it said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—was a Cabinet decision to give a defence treaty agreement to the Federal Ministers. He now says that it was not limitless in time. Therefore, it clearly had a limit in time. I asked what was the limit in time. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was coming to this. For how long did he give that undertaking?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has never before heard that this was a Cabinet decision by the Conservative Government. Let him look up the speech which I made in the House a fortnight ago—I think the right hon. Gentleman was here—and perhaps he will refresh his memory, which should not be as short as that. It is common knowledge that this was a Cabinet decision, and my right hon. Friend was, of course, authorised to do that.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the prospect of a weak and independent Federation in the context of the Middle East and its effect on Saudi Arabia, on Iran and on Israel, because all those countries, singly and collectively, are gravely anxious about the British Government leaving a vacuum of power in Aden into which Egypt can walk. Cannot the Foreign Secretary see that this is a recipe for disorder and possibly war over a very large area?
I said just now that if independence were accompanied by a defence commitment this commitment need not be limitless. No one would propose that it should be. In that speech, which the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten, I made two suggestions, which I will repeat for his benefit. I suggested that the duration of the defence treaty could be linked to Egypt's withdrawal of her forces in the Yemen. That would be one way. I suggested, too, that there might be a period of three years at the end of which time the defence agreement could be terminated at the option of either party. Those are two suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman himself might do well to consider.

Mr. George Brown: This is very important. Of course I remember the right hon. Gentleman's speech of a fortnight ago when he made these suggestions.


However, he said that his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was authorised to give the Federal Ministers a commitment which was not limitless in time. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman what limit in time his right hon. Friend put on it.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The commitment was to accompany independence with a defence treaty, and the commitment was on the parallel of the arrangement which we had made with Malaysia. This was a perfectly sensible arrangement. Incidentally, in that case, it paid a high political dividend, and I suggest an arrangement of this kind with the South Arabian Federation would also pay a high political reward. When at that time we were to negotiate a defence agreement, we did not have time to get down into details and conclude the agreement. Unfortunately, right hon. Gentlemen opposite took over. But if we had been able to complete the defence agreement, we should either have linked it—[Interruption.]—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen for a moment and curb his exuberance for a second—to withdrawal of Egyptian troops from the Yemen, or made it terminable at the option of either party at the end of three years or five years, at any rate a term sufficient to allow—and this is the point which I have emphasised over and over again—the South Arabian Federation to equip itself in order to defend itself and maintain its independence.

Mr. George Brown: Have we got it quite clear? [HON. MEMBERS: "We have."] I should like to get it clear. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's word when he says that this is the agreement which the Conservatives would have made. It is not, in fact, the agreement which they did make.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I wonder whether I can get it into the right hon. Gentleman's head that this was a commitment to a defence treaty, that we were committed to it and would have signed a defence treaty at the same time as we gave independence to the South Arabian Federation. Is that quite clear? There are plenty of respectable Commonwealth precedents for such a defence treaty, and I have particularly in mind that of Malaysia.
Let us for a moment leave out the fact that the previous Conservative Government made a commitment. Surely it is true that it is impossible to leave the South Arabian Federation in a weak position, unable to defend itself, without any responsibility accepted by the British Government for helping it to do so. That would be an impossible proposition. The right hon. Gentleman himself, when talking to the Labour Party conference about foreign policy east of Suez, made that very point not long ago—that premature withdrawal would be something which the British ought not to contemplate.
Therefore, I hope that the House will now hear from the right hon. Gentleman what are the instructions to Lord Shackleton. What are the political objectives at which he is to aim? Is he authorised to vary the date for independence? Is he authorised to tell the Federal Ministers that the United Kingdom will help them in their defence against external aggression until they are in a position to guarantee their own security? It is the answers to those questions for which we ask tonight, and that is why we have moved this Motion in these terms.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) started his speech by stressing his loyalty to the United Nations and the importance which he attaches to the United Nations. He said that earlier today some of my hon. Friends had expressed doubts about the attitude of the Opposition to the United Nations. When we express doubt, the right hon. Gentleman must forgive us—I could well feel for him when he started off with his defensive point—when we recall how he himself used to talk about the United Nations when he occupied high office in the British Government, particularly as Foreign Secretary, when he was directly responsible for our foreign affairs. I merely say that to put the record straight, because I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the main purpose of this debate must be to look forward and to give the best possible advice to the Government about how to deal with the immediate situation.
The right hon. Gentleman should not expect that we are taking as unconnected his previous attitude to the United Nations and the kind of manner in which he dismissed the United Nations Mission a few moments ago. It is all of one piece. It is not good enough, now that the right hon. Gentleman has forced the debate, completely to ignore the efforts of the Government to remain in contact with the United Nations and the express desire of the Secretary-General, U Thant, that there should be reconsideration of contact between Her Majesty's Government and the United Nations Mission.
By the way in which he dismissed the United Nations Mission and made some vague references to the Security-Council, the right hon. Gentleman proved conclusively, to me at least, that he was in favour of a policy of undermining the status of the United Nations Mission, which has been characteristic of the attitude of the Opposition ever since that Mission was first invited by the Government to take a hand in the situation. The Opposition bear a grave responsibility for some of the events which have since taken place. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I will explain why.
It has always been held, and the Opposition have many prominent members who have advanced this doctrine, that in matters of international affairs the attitude of the Opposition, particularly of their leading spokesmen, is important and second only in importance to the attitude of the Government. It does not go unnoticed when senior spokesmen of the Opposition attack a United Nations Mission immediately it has been appointed and before it can start its work. That is why I repeat that the Opposition bear a great responsibility for some of the events which have occurred.
I invite the House to look at some of the details of what has happened in the last few days, which will hear out, as I ventured to suggest this afternoon, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has given a fair and balanced account of the activities of the Mission and what has occurred. The way in which members of the Opposition tore into him when, for the first time, he had an opportunity as spokesman of the Government to give his account of what had happened was proof conclusive that

hon. Members opposite did not want to listen to the facts or be confused by them. They had decided their line of attack and the facts were not allowed to interfere with it.
As to the work of the mission, it would not do any harm to listen to the words of an accredited correspondent who represents a highly respected American paper, the Christian Science Monitor, in his dispatch from Aden two days ago. This is what Mr. John Cooley has to say in his report:
The Mission's position is difficult. It has not met F.L.O.S.Y.S.'s demands for recognition as the 'sole representative' of South Arabia's people.
That was the pressure that was put upon the Mission in Cairo and it quite properly and rightly refused that demand. I am certain that that expected demand had been discussed with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant.
I come now to the statement which the leader of the Mission wished to make on television in Aden and which was countermanded by the federal authorities. This was the statement which was described this afternoon as being particularly outrageous. I do not know whether every hon. Member who took part in that exercise had read the text before making his attack. I want to link the brief quotation which I have just read about the refusal of the Mission, quite properly, to yield to pressure in Cairo to what the leader of the Mission wanted to say on television had he been allowed to do so.
In the crucial part of his statement, this is what he wanted to say:
In the territory, we have been in touch with the High Commissioner and his staff as representatives of the United Kingdom, which is responsible to the United Nations as Administering Power. It is with them that we will deal officially in the territory and not with the Federal Government.
Obviously, those words were carefully chosen.
A decision had been taken in the United Nations committee, the committee which the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire has dismissed as if we could simply pick and choose and did not have to consider the attitude of other Powers, as if this was not a highly delicate operation and as if we, as one member of the United Nations, could dismiss the procedure which had been agreed upon and could call for another procedure overnight.


It was an irresponsible statement to be made by a former Foreign Secretary who had to face these practical problems, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has to face them now in suggesting that we could change overnight to another method from the method which had been decided after difficult negotiations.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, the statement which the leader of the Mission wanted to make on television clearly implies that there still might have been an opportunity, because it was only official negotiations that were ruled out in that statement by the leader of the Mission. I repeat that it is a matter of great regret that the Federal authorities did not allow that statement to be made on television. They must bear part of the blame and of the responsibility for the failure and the breakdown.
Why did the Federal authorities intervene? Surely, if a United Nations Mission, which is not simply an odd body or an odd committee of a private organisation, visits an area and its task is a difficult one, it is understandable that it must maintain a proper balance. Having refused the demands made in Cairo, the Mission clearly wanted to be in line with the United Nations resolution and it wanted to point out to all and sundry that it was not yielding to any other pressure either. To conclude on this point, it would have been to everybody's advantage if the leader of the Mission had been allowed to go on television and make his statement. There is something to be said for free speech even in a delicate situation.
It follows from this that there had been other attitudes which made the work of the Mission difficult. I should have preferred if, in spite of all these difficulties, the Mission had in the end further delayed its departure. There were, however, curious incidents which happened all along the line and which need some explaining.
I come now to what is the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and that is the officials and officers of the British High Commission. In an account in Le Monde, for instance, a highly respected paper published in France, I read an account of the incident of the searching of suit-

cases. I cannot for the life of me see why a United Nations Mission, which is there on the instructions of the Secretary-General, should be challenged that its members must have their suitcases searched.

The Minister of State, Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): The Minister of State, Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson) rose—

Mr. Mendelson: If my right hon. Friend is intervening, may I first give the quotation from Mr. Leo Keita, who is reported as saying after this incident occurred:
After all, why search us? We are not terrorists.

Mr. Thomson: I myself had my baggage searched when I was in Aden, for the simple reason that one wants to make sure that no one has put a bomb in it. My only anxiety was that my baggage should be searched efficiently.

Mr. Mendelson: My right hon. Friend might wish to undergo the same treatment as anyone else when going through customs, but he does not have to be sensitive on this point. It is a friendly gesture, in his case, which puts him on a par with everyone else. However, in the case of the United Nations Mission, it should have been possible, as was done in the end, to find a sensible method which would not have created bad feeling.
There were other occasions. It is customary for correspondents to ask questions at a Press conference. On this occasion, however, there was not just a period of question and answer. Quite a number of people among the Press corps asked all sorts of things in the form of declarations, and that is how some of the provocative exchanges came about. From the beginning, there was an attitude among many people of hostility and inconsiderateness towards the members of the Mission, and none of the incidents should be dismissed as completely unimportant.

Mr. Neil Marten: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has misunderstood the point about the baggage examination. The great fear is that baggage going on to a passenger aircraft might have had a bomb slipped into it by a servant. It is not a new practice which was applied to members of the United Nations Mission. It is


always the case, and if the hon. Gentleman had been to Aden he would know that it is done to everyone.

Mr. Mendelson: In the end, an alternative solution was reached in accordance with the diplomatic status of the Mission.
The political significance of the attitude which this created is quite clear, and it emerges from the position that we face today. It was essential that this mission should be in a position to provide an alternative solution, and I come now to the central point which ought to be the theme of this debate.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire has asked the Government for alternatives and has always pressed for them. A long campaign has been carried on at the same time demanding that the whole course of the Government's policy should be changed. In fact, that is the whole point of having the United Nations Mission.
We see at present the Federal Government, who assume that they must be the successive power after independence, with their present unreformed constitution and set-up. However, there are many people in the territory, particularly in Aden, who are not prepared to accept them. I realise that there is an external element of great importance and that President Nasser has people in the territory whom he supplies with arms and whom he instructs. I have never had any emotional illusions about the revolutionary movement there, and I have never had the feeling that Her Majesty's Government must hand over and walk out, leaving matters to Nasser to decide.
At the same time, it is an irresponsible policy to demand of Her Majesty's Government that they must give an open-ended commitment to stay there for as long as anyone in the Federal Government wishes them to, and supply our troops to go on doing the job. That is what the Opposition are asking. It is no longer simply the policy of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) who leads from below the Gangway. It is now the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It is a policy which is highly dangerous and which could lead to a situation where the leaders of the Federal Government would

lose all incentive to reach a compromise with popular feeling in their territory.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is no question of an unending commitment, as I have made plain time and time again. I made two suggestions which would limit the commitment, and there are plenty of others.

Mr. Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman may have answered that question to his own satisfaction. He certainly has not answered it to the satisfaction of hon. Members on this side of the House.
That is the kernel of the whole disagreement. What we hoped for from the United Nations Mission was a third solution, and the help of the United Nations and the Secretary-General is essential if that is to be found. The only hope of avoiding the wider bloodshed which everyone wants to avoid and at the same time putting limits on President Nasser's ambitions is to engage the United Nations, including all the members of the Security Council, to find an alternative solution.
The Opposition have treated this matter as if it were merely a question of giving an open-ended commitment to the Federal Government and then staying there, thereby guaranteeing the continuation of the Government in power. However, that is no solution to the problem, and the wild accusations which we have heard about disloyalty, about walking out and leaving people in the lurch, and the highly charged emotional atmosphere in which this campaign has been conducted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite over many months, would, if continued, undermine confidence in Her Majesty's Government in the Middle East and make it more difficult to enlist the help of members of the United Nations in finding a sensible policy.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to get in touch and keep in contact with the United Nations Mission, to enlist the good offices of the Secretary-General and to do everything in his power to see to it that, in some form, the work of the Mission is turned to good account. In spite of the fact that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite felt that there was not so much importance in some of these points, I repeat that it is also important to give instructions to our officers in the High


Commission to be very careful in the way in which they deal with members of the Mission. I can see no reason why, when the television broadcast was recorded, there should have been officers of the High Commission present in the room. That introduced an element of political censorship immediately—[Interruption.] I would say the same if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition went to Aden and recorded a television broadcast. I should not expect officials from the High Commission to be there listening, saying afterwards that they did not like what he said and that it would not be broadcast.

Mr. George Thomson: I can assure my hon. Friend that officers of the High Commission were not present at the broadcast recording. The difficulty arose because we did not know the text of the broadcast, since we had deliberately stayed away unless we should be accused of the very thing that my right hon. Friend fears.

Mr. Mendelson: In that case, they were officers of the Federal Government. My right hon. Friend must be precise about this. If he now says, contrary to the account which has appeared in many reputable newspapers, that no officers of the High Commission were present when the broadcast was recorded, clearly the persons present were officials of the Federal Government, and they must have got in touch with representatives of the High Commission, because there is a high official on the staff of the High Commissioner who advises the Federal Minister of Information about such matters, as my right hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Thomson: This is an important point. As far as I know, there were no officials of the Federal Government present, because the United Nations Mission did not recognise the Federal Government. On the other hand, the television technicians present were Federal technicians, because the Government own the broadcasting system.

Mr. Mendelson: I do not want to delay the House on this point, but it is quite clear that some officials who were there gave a full account afterwards of what had been said in the recorded broadcast. I am sure that my right hon. Friend wants the House to know the

facts. It is clear that, afterwards, someone gave an account of the broadcast to the Federal authorities—

Mr. Thomson: Mr. Thomson indicated assent.

Mr. Mendelson: I see that my right hon. Friend agrees. If that is not censorship, I do not know what it is. If someone was there who reported what the Chairman of the United Nations Mission said, how can that be anything but censorship or spying? Clearly, as a result of that report, the broadcast was banned.
Extreme care should be exercised in the way in which any United Nations representative is treated. There is suspicion abroad, and we have to be reassured, as do members of the United Nations, that everyone in the office of the High Commissioner is as keen to see the United Nations Mission succeed as my right hon. Friend is. This must be said frankly if the debate is to be of any value.
If the United Nations receives a report from the Mission which stops here, then it will not advance anybody's interests, apart from the interests of those who wish to prevent agreement being reached. If the Government were to proceed on the irresponsible advice of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire the work of the Mission would be sidetracked. If the Mission does not want to continue, we may have to accept that in the end. In the meantime, if we take the initiative and dismiss the further work of the Mission, we will be indicted before the U.N. and find ourselves in a very poor position indeed. We would be accused of taking part in a move to make the work of the Mission impossible.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has the right answer. We must do all we can to get the Mission first perhaps to come to London and then to return to Aden under improved conditions in the hope that, with the cooperation of the Mission and the Secretary-General, a better alternative solution might be proposed and a peaceful settlement arrived at. Until that is achieved there can be no question of one merely saying that one supports the Federal Government and guarantees the continued existence of British troops in the area for many years. That way lies disaster. Attempts must be continued


to reach a peaceful solution so that the people there may know that our guarantee is limited in time, so that this may act as a spur to a solution being reached.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I hope that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will not accuse me of discourtesy if I do not go into the same detail as he went in examining the circumstances of the United Nations Mission. There are three matters I wish to canvass; first, to assess the job which the Mission was asked to do; secondly, to try to diagnose why there are problems at the moment in the Federation and, thirdly, to discover what Lord Shackleton should be asked to do in an effort to overcome these difficulties.
On the Mission I merely say that for those who are keen to uphold the Charter and authority of the United Nations, none of us can take particular pleasure from what has happened in the last few days. As for the broadcast, if the purpose of the television broadcast was to ask for cooperation, I cannot see that a controversial reference to the Federal Government was either necessary or wise. I wonder whether that appeal was as sincere as it might have been, in view of the suggestions that have been made by the Foreign Secretary today that there were certain people who were prepared to overcome the intimidation and who had offered to give evidence but who were not welcomed so to do.
Was there agreement in the mind of the Government and of the Mission about the Mission's terms of reference? The General Assembly requested the Mission
… to consider recommending practical steps for the establishment of a central caretaker Government in the territory, to carry out the administration of the whole territory and to assist in the organisation of elections.
On 4th April last I asked the Minister of State in a supplementary, following my Private Notice Question, whether he could say
… if the terms of reference of the United Nations Mission, announced on 23rd February, are sufficient to advocate some change in the federal structure? If not, will the Government consider appointing something along the lines of the Monckton Commission …
The Minister replied:
We are satisfied that the terms of reference of the United Nations Mission give it full

freedom to make recommendations about the securing of peaceful independence.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 33–4.]
I would describe that as a monument of Ministerial ambiguity.
Did the resolution of the General Assembly mean that the Mission had power to recommend, for example, that there be a coalition caretaker Government comprising Federal and national Ministers? Did it mean that the Mission did not have the power to recommend, if it thought fit, the dissolution of federation? It is important to know the extent of the power it had when it went into the territory.
I disagree with the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in his suggestion—at least, I gathered him to be suggesting this—that the U.N. should be allowed to police the frontiers and prevent infiltration. I believe that the only justification for the U.N. entering Aden is if it is being given the widest possible powers to make any political recommendation it might think fit. Either we must give the U.N. complete power or no power at all. There is no good to be gained from compromising between the two.
If the prestige of the U.N. is to be restored, it would need somebody of the calibre of U Thant or Ralph Bunche to go back to Aden, but he would need the widest possible powers, not merely to talk about the personnel of a caretaker Government but to go into the whole question of the political structure of the Federation.
I do not want to dwell on the past, save in so far as it is relevant to our action for the future. There is no doubt in my mind that problems have arisen owing to the frogmarch of Aden Colony in 1962 into the Aden Protectorate to form a Federation. It is ironic that the fiercest critics of the Government today are the architects of four Federations which, in several parts of the world, have failed. The word is strewn with the federal ruins which are a lasting monument to the policies of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). One knows as a basic political fact that what that right hon. Gentleman hath joined together in political matrimony is bound to fall asunder.
The Foreign Secretary was right, therefore, to say that this was far beyond being a simple colonial issue. We already have the situation in which the Hadramut is being drawn closer and closer to Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni loyalists, the nationalists are being drawn closer to the Yemeni Republicans and Egypt and the Federals are becoming more and more isolated and therefore more and more dependent on the good offices and protection of Britain. We therefore have a situation in which, whatever happens when Britain withdraws, there will be a major clash of interests between neighbouring countries. We furthermore have the position in which neither the nationalists nor the sheikhdoms can claim to speak for the majority of the population.
I believe that there is no alternative to a complete re-examination of the political structure in the Federation. I speak as one who cried as a voice in the wilderness that the Central African Federation was doomed on the basis that, apart from the economic arguments, the Federation was the effect of a political shot-gun marriage and was therefore bound to end if not in bloodshed then in bitter divorce. I believe that this Federation is as bound to fail as the Central African Federation and that just as Singapore seceded from Malaysia, so will Aden Colony secede from the Protectorate as a whole.
I therefore plead with the Foreign Secretary to recognise the political facts of life of this area. I plead that if there clearly is a move to bring about dissolution—to have an Aden State Government—we do it now while we can still have some control over the situation and prevent bloodshed and that we do not clear out and have it happen at the end of six months of independence, when probably a military and sheikhly government will take over and lead to another military dictatorship.
This is the moment to look and see whether this Federation will survive and bring about the political examination which is needed. I therefore urge on the Government that when the noble Lord goes out, he does not go out there merely to patch up the existing situation—merely to try to see that the decisions which are taken are perhaps likely to keep the temperature down by a few degrees or to ensure that security is made more efficient

and effective—but that he has the power of a Monckton Commission when it went to Central Africa to make any recommendations to the Foreign Secretary which he thinks fit the political future of the area.
I want to mention one other matter, namely, the position about our defence commitments. As I see it, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire said that there was an offer to treat. There was an agreement that if and when independence came there would be discussions with a view to giving some form of defence alliance to the Federation. I accept that that was the intention of the previous Government and I accept that they would have felt bound to honour it. Whether or not it is a final agreement, a binding agreement upon any future Government, I do not know. I think it probably might be, but it is an arguable point.
I bow to no one in my enthusiasm to liquidate our overseas commitments, whether it is east of Suez, whether it is in the Trucial States, in Bahrein or in Aden. But I think that because of the political position initiated by a Conservative Government under the aegis of the right hon. Member for Streatham, and, like so many bad Conservative policies, automatically carried on by a Labour successor, there is such a muddle, such an appalling political situation in that part of the world that, whether we want to pull out or not, I do not in all honesty think that we can until we get the right political settlement. If we get the right political settlement, if we have an Aden State Government, if there is a loose federation or confederation between the 20 sheikhdoms and possibly the Hadramut, with the Aden Protectorate having some form of treaty obligation such as we have in Kuwait, then in a short time we shall be able to phase out all our defensive obligations in the same way as we did in Kuwait.
We were told, "You must have a defence treaty with Kuwait. Otherwise you will never get your oil. You will have the Iraqis moving in." It is true that we had the British troops going in once and the House will remember how it was necessary to melt down ice cream so that they could get enough liquid to drink. But in a very short time the Kuwaitis came to terms with the rest of the world.


That is what the sheikhdoms have got to do. They have got to learn to stand on their own feet, as have the Trucial sheikhdoms and the Ruler of Bahrein. If we do not break up the Federation, it does not matter how many troops we keep there and it does not matter how long we keep them there. We shall have more bloodshed, more bitterness, and the most appalling political mess that there has ever been in that part of the world.
Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that what is more important than the question of defence is to get the political structure right. If he does that, I shall be surprised if it does not include dissolution of the Federation.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I am in almost entire agreement with a large part of the speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party. There is a great political problem here and it has to be solved. It is wrong to treat the military aspects of the situation in isolation.
It seems to me rather regrettable that this debate is taking place at all. This is clearly a moment of the utmost delicacy as far as the diplomatic manoeuvres involved in the situation are concerned, and the sort of thrashing around that we are having from the Opposition in this affair, both during Question Time this afternoon and in some parts of the speech of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), seems to me to be unhelpful in obtaining a settlement.
I do not accept, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to accept, the idea that the United Nations Mission to Aden started off its deliberations in a wholly anti-British mood. I do not accept that it is representative of a strain of United Nations opinion which unhappily exists and which is anti-colonialist in its aspirations and its attitude. I do not think the Mission went out there merely in order to make itself a convenient platform for the extreme nationalist sentiments which exist in that area. I believe it went out there trying to help the situation and genuinely seeking to solution.
Deep misunderstandings have occurred in the last week to ten days, but it seems to me that, having accepted that fact, the way in which one should try to deal

with the situation is to look at the causes of these misunderstandings, bring them into the open, analyse them and see whether or not the United Nations Mission still does not have a very important and, perhaps, a crucial rôle to play in the situation.
I would not accept that the right attitude for the British Government to take in this situation is merely to say, "The United Nations has failed; a plague on the United Nations. We will now revert to a situation in which we give what appears to be an open-ended military commitment to the maintenance of a political régime," of whose stability I have very great doubts.
There are only two points in the situation, as I see it. First, is this situation in Aden one in which the United Nations ought to be involved? If it is, what should the Government now do, faced with the apparent failure of the mission so far?
The tone of part of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire was—I regret to say it—in line with some of the speeches he made as Foreign Secretary. There is a strain of anti-United Nations feeling in what is so often said by the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Front Bench on matters of this sort.
The right hon. Gentleman implicitly posed the question whether the United Nations has any status in this sort of situation. Had the United Nations been involved earlier in Cyprus, had it been possible for the United Nations to be involved at any stage in the Algerian situation, had it been able to advise the British Government at the time of Indian independence, it seems to me that that type of situation would probably have been far better resolved than the way in which it was dealt with under various Governments, wholly on a national basis, with no recourse to any international assistance. In Cyprus there were two races at each other's throats, when the British Government were involved in an unprecedented situation in which they were not prepared to involve the United Nations and were not prepared to take the matter to an international forum. The result was considerable bloodshed over the years and eventually a situation in which Britain was forced to withdraw.
Therefore, I suggest that the greater the degree of involvement by the United Nations in the whole Aden situation, the greater the chances of eventual stability in the area. I do not believe that the correct attitude for Britain should be merely to bolster up the present South Arabian Federation with defence commitments, open-ended so far as I can see, which are to carry on after independence, when and this is particularly so, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the political situation in the Federation is itself extremely unstable.
I do not want to repeat what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said about the Federation which was constituted by the last Administration, but it is surely clear that where there is a forced marriage between one State which is comparatively sophisticated and modern, which has at least some rudiments of modern political thoughts on the one hand, and, on the other, a large number of almost mediæval sheikhdoms, then there will be an enormous strain within that forced entity. We may back up the South Arabian Federation with all the military might of which we are capable of putting into that area, but, unless we are prepared to remain there for a period of time which I would find unacceptable, then the strains inherent in the South Arabian Federation will gradually come to the surface, and they cannot be resolved save by Britain retaking the administration of the whole territory into her control. This is a policy I would wholeheartedly be against.
I conclude the first of my two points then, that this is an area of the world in which there is great potential danger and an area in which the greater the United Nations involvement the greater the chances of eventual stability. It therefore seems to me that the United Nations Mission was certainly worth sending to the area and certainly worth our support.
My second point, which follows from the first, is simply that if the Government are right in their view that it was desirable to involve the United Nations in the area, what do the Government do now, faced with the situation that the mission has apparently failed?
I think that we should try to do two things. First, it is absolutely essential that we should try to re-establish contact with the Mission as soon as possible. I know that the Foreign Secretary is trying to do this, and I hope that his efforts will be successful. But, having re-established contact with it, the Government should now be prepared to consider fresh political solutions to the South Arabian situation if they be recommended by the United Nations. It is not good enough to shut one's eyes to the political implications of the problem. It is not good enough merely to say that this is a military problem which can be solved if Britain is prepared to exert sufficient military pressure in the area. I do not believe this to be true. I believe it to be a political problem which at some stage the Government must face politically, and I also believe that in that situation the greater the degree of United Nations involvement the greater the chances of eventual stability in the future.
I thoroughly regret that this debate has taken place tonight. This is the wrong time for it and, with all due repect to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it was opened in the wrong way and with the wrong tone. I only hope, however, that out of this debate may yet come some slight semblance of good.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I am sure that the House is glad that Mr. Speaker felt able to allow it to debate this important question without delay. If Parliament is to play its full part in the nation's affairs, it must be able to react at once to important events, even if this involves some interference with its scheduled business.
Over the past week, there has been a complete change in the situation in South Arabia. The Government's policy is now in tatters. Having failed hopelessly to find workable solutions to the problems of the area, they tried in the most shameless way to pass the buck to the United Nations. Despite all our warnings, they persisted in believing that the United Nations Mission would be able to conjure away all their difficulties. Now all that wishful thinking is at an end.
The Foreign Secretary, like Humpty Dumpty, has fallen off the wall, and


nothing will put the broken pieces of his policy together again. He is wasting his time in asking the United Nations Mission to come to London or go back to Aden. He is debasing himself and Britain by whining to Nasser and by appealing, as he did again today, to Al Asnag and other terrorists to come to Aden to tell him what to do. He will never get a solution if he makes it dependent upon the agreement of those who have no wish to see the orderly progress of South Arabia or the creation of a truly independent federation, of which he has so often spoken.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sandys: I am afraid not. Others wish to speak in this short debate.
The people to whom I was referring have the deliberate aim of creating chaos, and their utimate objective is to hand over South Arabia to Egyptian domination.
Let the right hon. Gentleman now start working with those who are trying to help instead of those who are trying to hinder. Let him work with the Federal Government, who have been loyal to Britain and who have co-operated fully with the British Government although they thought that its policies were totally mistaken.
The Liberal leader crticised the late Government's decision to unite Aden with the Federation. All I would say tonight is that no one in South Arabia, including the nationalist organisations, is asking for the separation of Aden from the Federation. They all recognise that it makes no sense to separate the Port of Aden from its hinterland. The argument is not about union between Aden and the Federation. It is about who shall control the whole.
I may be asked precisely what I think the Government should do in the present situation. That is a fair question, and I certainly shall not hesitate to tell the House.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the hinterland. Did he note the suggestion in an editorial in the Sunday Times yesterday that the true hinterland of Aden is the Yemen?

Mr. Sandys: And so what? Does the right hon. Gentleman want to extend the

Federation to include the Yemen also? But I will not pursue that point. The right hon. Gentleman is always very well documented, especially in his speeches, as we all know. He always quotes one newspaper article after another.
As to what I would do in this situation, I believe, first, that the Government should make it clear that they intend to restore law and order and that they are prepared to use whatever force is needed to achieve this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course; no more and no less. F.L.O.S.Y. should at once be banned. I cannot understand how it is that the National Liberation Front, the smaller of the two terrorist organisations, has been proscribed for some time while F.L.O.S.Y. supporters are allowed to parade the streets of Aden with banners and walk in procession carrying Sten guns, as we saw in newspaper photographs last week. I ask the Minister who is to reply to explain the different treatment that has been accorded to these two terrorist organisations.
The Federal Army should be allowed to play its full part in curbing terrorism. If the right hon. Gentleman fears that it may be rough with the terrorists, all I can say is that it will not be nearly as rough as the troops of his friend, Nasser, have been in trying to suppress the supporters of the lawful Government in the Yemen, the Government which is recognised by Her Majesty's Government. In any case, it is the Federal Government who will have to deal with internal security after independence. Surely it makes sense to begin to give them some experience of the difficult job of maintaining internal security in Aden as soon as possible, and, in particular, while British help and advice are still available.
The next thing is to fix a date for independence in agreement with the Federal Government. The right hon. Gentleman must accept without question that the Federal Government are the Government who will take over from Britain on independence. That is a fact. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to delay that independence—which I am not advocating—for a year or two, then it might be possible to hold fresh elections under some new constitution, but in view of the Government's hurry to get out the most that can be hoped for is the adoption by the Federation of an amended


constitution on the lines recommended by the Home Bell Report.

Mr. Richard: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman and trying to follow what he has said with great interest. May I ask him two questions? Is he wholly satisfied that the present political structure of South Arabia is the one which must endure after independence? Secondly, would he still maintain that view of the United Nations were to recommend otherwise?

Mr. Sandys: As for the structure, what I am saying is that if the Government are going to hurry out at the first possible moment then they must accept the consequence, which is that there is no other Government to which they can possibly hand over in a matter of months. As I said, the most they can hope for is some amendment of the present constitution on the basis of the Home Bell Report, which is a very valuable Report. But even so, there will certainly be no time to register voters and hold new elections before the sort of dates for independence which are being suggested by the Government. Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman should remember that the British representative in New York has repeatedly told the United Nations that the constitution of the Federation cannot be changed except in agreement with the Federal Government. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman, in winding up, would confirm that fact. There can therefore be no question of imposing some new constitution upon South Arabia from Whitehall.
According to my information, the Minister of State, during his fleeting visit to Aden the other day, pressed the Federal Government to accept a package deal—independence on 1st November this year, coupled with the carrot of a unilateral promise by the British Government to keeping a naval task force off the coast of South Arabia. This force was to be available to come to the rescue of South Arabia, in the event of external attack, for a period of three months or, at most, six months after independence. It was made clear by the Minister of State, I understand, that if they did not accept the date of 1st November the offer of protection would be withdrawn. I consider this to be a very unfair form of pressure. But, despite this, the Federal Government rightly rejected this pro-

posal on two grounds. The first was that some British military presence on land was essential to convince Nasser that Britain meant business. The second was that a promise of protection limited to three months is totally useless; it would only mean a short postponement of the Egyptian attack.
I have no wish to see independence delayed. I believe that a date in the early part of next year could be mutually agreed, but the agreement of the Federal Government will depend upon some assurance of protection for a reasonable time thereafter. Surely the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary must by now realise that it just is not practical politics for Britain to pull out next year and to hand South Arabia totally defenceless on a plate to Nasser. Some defence arrangements will have to be made for the protection of the Federation so long as Egypt continues to maintain large forces over the Yemen border. This would not preclude a major reduction in the present size of the British garrison in Aden, but the retention of a small British military presence is essential, and this would, of course, have to include an element of the Royal Air Force.
In addition to his consultations with the Federal Government, the right hon. Gentleman should consult much more closely with the Government of Saudi Arabia. Instead of writing to President Nasser he should be writing to King Feisal. Saudi Arabia, unlike Egypt, genuinely wants to see stability in the Arabian Peninsula. The closer we work with the Saudi Arabian Government the better it will be.
I have explained what I think the Government should do. One must now wait to see what new decision they will take in the light of the recommendations they will receive from Lord Shackleton. I am quite sure his advice will be that a complete change of policy is now needed. I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the courage to take it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: There are four brief points I should like to make in this debate which has arisen tonight. The first is that there is no doubt at all in my mind about the position of Aden's link with the Federation.


Before Aden was linked to the Federation there was the minimum amount of trouble, and the whole difficulty and the violence and the bloodshed have arisen since and have come about because of the link between Aden itself and the South Arabian Federation.
It may be said by some people that it is all very well looking back now with hindsight to say that it was a mistake, and that we did not know at the time, but in the debates which took place beforehand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was warned time and again that the link between Aden and the Federation would lead to chaos. There were many Members of the Labour Party, in Opposition in those days, and on the Liberal bench as well, who opposed the Federal link, but the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual stubborn, obstinate attitude, refused to listen, and today we have the right hon. Gentleman, who is very much the architect of the bloodshed and chaos in Aden, giving us lectures and advice on what should be done about it, and I believe it would be very foolish indeed of the Government to take any heed of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham.

Mr. Marten: The hon. Member says that my right hon. Friend was the architect of the bloodshed. My right hon. Friend did help to create the Federation. He did that after the July, 1964, agreement, but in 1964 the number of terrorist incidents with violence was 36 only, and then in February, 1966, the present Government announced the date of withdrawal and in 1966 the number of incidents was not 36 but 480. Surely that is what caused the bloodshed?

Mr. Winnick: If the implication of what the hon. Gentleman says is that if in fact we said we were not going to pull out there would be peace, I certainly do not agree with that analysis at all.
Al Asnag and other Nationalist leaders warned at the time about this link with the Federation, and I myself previously in the House have quoted from their speeches. They said that if the link was to take place and Aden enslaved in the Federation violence was bound to come. They warned about it at the time.

Mr. Marten: Why did it not come in 1964?

Mr. Winnick: I do not know. I am sorry, but I do not direct the activities of the nationalist groups. But it was inevitable that sooner or later violence would come.
By 1964 we should have learned the lessons of other federations. We should have learned that we cannot just sit here at Westminster and decide policies for other countries.
It may be that from an academic point of view—or, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman, it may be in our interest—the federal set-up at the time was most appropriate, but the majority of the people of Aden—the politicians, trade union leaders and the nationalist leaders—wanted nothing to do with that set-up. The right hon. Gentleman was not willing to listen, any more than he and his colleagues were willing to listen to our warnings about the Central African Federation—and look what happened: it failed, just as this one is bound to fail.
I hope that the Government will not take seriously some of the warnings given by the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should ban the various nationalist organisations and lock up their leaders. It is all very well to say that that is the solution, and to argue that those who advocate violence or are involved in it should be locked up. Have not they learned the lesson from previous situations in Ireland, Palestine and Cyprus? Have they not learned that locking up or detaining nationalist leaders does not help? The more the British authorities acted against the nationalist leaders in previous cases the more the status of those leaders grew.
Instead of thinking of banning these organisations and locking up the nationalist leaders we should be negotiating with those leaders in Aden. We should express our willingness to negotiate with the leadership of F.L.O.S.Y. and the other nationalist organisations. Sooner or later we shall have to do so. That policy has been forced upon us in every similar colonial situation in the past, and I doubt whether it will be any different in Aden. It would be foolish to lock up the nationalist leaders in the belief that the situation would thereafter improve and the problem would be solved. It would not solve the problem; it would only


worsen the situation. I hope that the Government have learned the lessons of the past, even if the Conservatives have not.
I am sorry that the United Nations Mission failed. I am a great enthusiast of the United Nations. The events which have occurred in the last few days give me no delight. It is clear that some people in Aden were determined to make the Mission look foolish. Some people who were anti-United Nations felt, as the right hon. Member for Streatham feels, that the United Nations should not intervene in Aden in any circumstances. In my opinion, some responsibility for what has occurred must rest with the British authorities in Aden. Press reports to the effect that the members of the Mission wanted razor blades and wanted to watch a cowboy film were put out in an endeavour to make the Mission look foolish.
The purpose of some people, to get the Mission to accept the Federal authority, was quite wrong. The Mission did not go to Aden simply to O.K. the federal set-up. I understand that its terms of reference were of another kind, namely, to look at the whole situation in Aden and to make a report to its committee and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Some people felt that the only purpose of the Mission was to accept the existing set-up. But if the members of the Mission had the same sort of attitude towards that set-up as many people like myself have, I do not see why they should have had to O.K. the set-up. In their view it was inappropriate for the Aden Colony.
I hope that the Mission will accept the invitation extended to it by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and will be willing to come to London for further talks. I hope that sooner or later, as in the case of Cyprus, we shall be willing to allow a United Nations force into Aden itself. Considering the whole situation in that part of the world, that may be the most appropriate solution. Some Members—certainly many hon. Members opposite—are so blinded by their dislike of the United Nations that they would never accept such a solution. In December, 1961, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), when Foreign Secretary, made a speech that was a disgrace. It

was full of venom and prejudice against the United Nations, and it was shameful that a British Foreign Secretary should have made such a speech.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will send the hon. Member a copy of my speech. It is clear that he has not read it. I made a proposal that there should be a United Nations force in the South Arabian Federation, on the border. I made this proposal years ago.

Mr. Winnick: I shall be willing to read the right hon. Gentleman's speech, although I read it at the time. In my opinion a United Nations force should go into Aden itself. I am sorry that the visit of the Mission ended as it did. I hope that it is not the end of the Mission itself. If it is to go back to Aden the British authorities must adopt a completely different attitude. They must show a willingness to allow the Mission to carry out its task. Any question of banning broadcasts by the Mission would be quite wrong. In this case it was done by the Federal authorities, but the High Commissioner should have overruled those authorities so that the broadcast could be made. It was a farcical situation. The Mission went to Aden, and then, when it wanted to make a broadcast, the Federal authorities—and they represent only one of the parties which are engaged in jockeying for power—banned the broadcast. That was quite wrong. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to give us further information on that aspect of the matter.
When I asked a Question earlier in the day I expressed the view that the British Government should be willing to break up the Federation and to allow Aden to leave. To some extent I respect the view of people who say that Aden will not survive on its own. In my opinion, the leaders of the nationalist organisations are looking for a wider set-up. We are not arguing that Aden should be on its own, but the essential point at the moment is that we should be willing to agree that the federal set-up is not final, and that if the majority of the people of Aden wish to do so they should be allowed to leave the Federation.
In the future the nationalist organisations and the rest may decide what sort of set-up they want. We should be cautious about giving them advice as to how they should carry out their business.


We would not like it if Arab nationalists in various parts of the world, including Cairo, lectured us on the question whether we should go into the Common Market. We would consider that to be most inappropriate, and a piece of insolence on their part. Why, then, should we consider that we have a divine mission to tell the Arab nations or anyone else how they should go about their business? We should confine our activities to Europe. Many people will argue that we have enough on our plates in our own part of the world without worrying about what happens in various Arab countries.
I hope that there will be a break from the previous policy pursued by the right hon. Member for Streatham and the right hon. Member for Kinross and East Perthshire. I know that anything I said to them in this respect would be in vain, because their minds are quite made up. I hope, however, that my Government, recognising—as they did when they formed the Opposition—that the federal set-up is wrong for Aden, will be willing to adopt a completely different approach to the situation and will be willing to say, in certain circumstances, "Yes. If that is the wish of the majority of the people in Aden the federal set-up shall be disbanded". I hope that this will be the case.
I must give this warning to the House. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members opposite laugh. Some of them were responsible for and approved the federal set-up. Look at what has happened? I see nothing funny or amusing in the chaos and bloodshed in Aden. I see nothing funny about the victims of terrorist attacks. I see nothing funny about the way in which British soldiers are forced to defend themselves in very unfortunate circumstances. In fact, I do not see anything funny about the Aden situation at all. I am sorry, but perhaps it is something lacking in my sense of humour.
I give this warning to the House. If we go on in the present way, if we do not negotiate with the nationalist leaders, if we heed some of the very foolish advice being given by the right hon. Member for Streatham, we may well end up getting involved in a Yemen civil war which will rival the bloodshed and suffering which is at present taking place in Vietnam. This is why I believe that we should be willing to negotiate with the

nationalist leaders and should be willing to say that Aden can leave the federal set-up. We should emphasise clearly tonight that in no circumstances will we continue in the Federation beyond 1968, but will carry out the commitment which this Government have made that Britain will leave Aden by 1968. I believe it is essential that this point is clearly made tonight.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Our troops in Aden and the Arabs who hope to live for the rest of their lives in Aden town and the Federation will not be much interested in the party political inquest here as to who is responsible for the present unhappy situation in their country. They know who is responsible. It is Colonel Nasser. What they want to know, and what they are entitled to know, is what Britain intends to do to restore law and order in an area in which we have been responsible for over 130 years and are still responsible.
The situation in Aden is an all too familar one in our post-war history. We have seen it in varying degrees in Palestine, in the Indian sub-continent, and in Cyprus. I hope that we are not once again going to betray our trust to the peoples under our care by throwing in our hand and leaving chaos and bloodshed behind us.
This country has every reason to be proud of its record of bringing millions of men and women in all parts of the world forward to self-government under the rule of law. It is our duty to do this in Aden, however painful and costly that duty may temporarily be.
The shocking thing about this Government's policy is that they seem to be seeking to evade responsibilities and commitments, admittedly heavy, admittedly unwelcome, which they have inherited and are bound in honour to discharge, and to do so at what must prove to be the cost of the innocent lives of men, women and children for whom we are responsible and who will be massacred if we withdraw our troops before order is restored.
I find it very difficult to understand how those hon. Members opposite who have spoken so far and who feel very strongly, and understandably so, about the suffering of women and children in Vietnam,


can be so ready to wash their hands of the situation in Aden and the Federation where, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) pointed out, comparable suffering may rapidly overtake equally innocent people if we pull out.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The hon. Gentleman spoke about 120 years of our preserving law and order. I wonder who asked us in 120 years ago to preserve law and order.

Mr. Tapsell: We went in 130 years ago to protect the area from piracy and to stop the slave trade.
At times such as these, it is no bad thing to have some principles to guide one, both in the immediate situation and for the future. What ought to be the basic principles of British foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere? The two most successful peace-time exponents of British foreign policy since the Industrial Revolution have been Canning and Palmerston. Their policies shared certain characteristics. They allied Britain with the forces of emergent nationalism which seemed likely to win. They presented them to the public at home in dramatic and idealistic terms.
They gave top priority, in practice, to the commercial interests of this country. They avoided, where possible with honour, involvements requiring the expenditure of large sums of money or the stationing of British troops abroad. They appreciated that the rôle of "honest broker" is the most unrewarding of all diplomatic activities and were not afraid to be on one side rather than the other. Consequently, their policies were popular at home and advantageous abroad.
Even since the war, British foreign policy, it seems to me, has reversed these five principles. Hardly any cause has been too clearly doomed for Britain to back it or, at least, to express sympathy for it. Diplomacy and dullness have become synonymous. Embassy staffs have, until very recently, regarded the commercial side of their duties as of least importance. It is difficult to find an inhospitable part of the world unlittered with the remains of British barracks hastily built, at great expense, on the eve of evacuation. No dispute, however bitter, has been complete until the British have antagonised both sides to it

—Jews and Arabs, Indians and Pakistanis, Greeks and Turks, African nationalists and European settlers, Malays and Singaporeans, French and Americans. At this rate, I suspect that it can be only a matter of time before we are volunteering to act as "honest broker" between the Chinese and the Russians. Consequently, our policies have been unpopular at home and disadvantageous abroad.
Our Middle East policy and our policy towards Aden have been no exception. But, fortunately for us, a new situation has now arisen in the Middle East, which could, it seems to me, get us off the hook, where our friends are the born losers and our enemies the inevitable winners. Our friends, such as Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, have become the real revolutionaries, pressing ahead with social reforms and governing in the obvious interests of their people. Our enemies, although still calling themselves radical nationalists, have become the real reactionaries, increasingly tyrannical, incompetent, jingoistic and murderous. What is more, our friends have most of the oil. So let us tell the world whose side we are on and why, and let us not tell the world at the same time that we are equally anxious to be friends with our enemies. Leave it to them to tell us.
Put into the context of Southern Arabia, this means that we should support Saudi Arabia, offer a defence treaty to the Federation, crush Nasserite terrorism in Aden, and make clear that we intend to withdraw our forces as soon as we have discharged our pledged word to bring Aden forward to a meaningful independence among the free nations of the world.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: I was fascinated to hear the version given by the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) of Britain's arrival in Aden, in some Fabian pursuit to suppress piracy and eliminate slavery. To my knowledge of history, we went there to protect the flank of the Indian Empire. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has his geography mixed and is thinking of the Trucial and Oman States.
I was interested, also, in his version of those progressive territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Jordan, little


centres of advance compared with reactionary places such as Iraq and Cairo. I was fascinated, too, by his general obsession, which is common on the benches opposite, with President Nasser, although it is noteworthy that the word "President" is never used.
Although President Nasser makes mistakes and pursues policies which I would not follow, the House should understand that in Aden, where his pictures can be seen in the bazaars, President Nasser is admired not as an Egyptian but as a person who stands for Arab nationalism. He stands for Arab nationalism from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. If there were no President Nasser, another figure would arise to represent this kind of feeling, particularly among the younger generation. But I do not wish to be led away into irrelevancies by a speech from the Opposition benches.
I turn to the question of Aden and the South Arabian Federation and its future, first making some remarks about the United Nations Mission that went to Aden. I regret its departure after such a short stay. Those hon. Members who have not known Aden and the mood that that territory creates will not understand this, but I think that the Mission left because it was obsessed with the feeling of despondency and difficulty. I do not underestimate the fact that F.L.O.S.Y. refused to co-operate with the Mission, making its case more difficult in a way.
It seems extraordinary that the Federal Government should have banned the broadcast because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendel-son) said, it spoke of "officially" dealing only with the British Government. There was no suggestion that unofficially there would not be contacts between the Mission and individual members of the Federal Government.
The Mission had a very difficult task because, having already rebuked F.L.O.S.Y. by saying, "We shall not take you as sole representative of the nationalists", it would at once have compromised its position if it had said that it would deal with the Federal Government. I feel that the Mission left too soon, against the orders of the U.N. Secretary-General, because it allowed itself to be caught up with the mood of

that very difficult territory. I am not optimistic that it will return, although I hope that it will. I hope that it will come to London and that its conversation with Her Majesty's Government will persuade it to return. But the kind of experience it had in Aden may make its members personally reluctant to return.
We understand that the Government are at present engaged in an entirely new survey of the situation in South Arabia following the breakdown of the Mission. I appeal to the Government to think again about the whole question of the Federation, including the former Western and Eastern Protectorates being joined together with Aden Colony. It is impossible to conceive a more unnatural unit. Of all the Federations that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) thought up, that is the most grotesque creation that could be imagined in political science.
I do not make this an argument against the rulers in the Federal areas. Many are honourable, forthright people who have served their communities. It is no good trying to describe them, as some people try to do, as wicked, reactionary mercenaries. Their life is entirely different from that which the bulk of the world understands.
At the same time we, as a nation, must understand the feelings of the people of Aden—not the political leaders, such as Mr. Asnag or Mr. Makkawi alone, but the feelings of the Yemeni who have come in, of the Somalis, and even of the Indians and Pakistanis, who are genuinely concerned that should a Federation as at present planned come into being great numbers of them will lose their lives.
I hope that the Government are not considering handing over in November of this year the South Arabian Federation, including Aden, to the control of Federal Ministers, because that is the last way we shall avoid bloodshed. When I was in Cairo, President Nasser admitted that he backed the Aden terrorists, as he said he had backed up the F.L.N. groups in Algeria when they were seeking independence. But he said, "If I did not back up the Aden Nationalists, another nation, such as Syria, would."
One cannot expect the people of Aden to tolerate a Government imposed by the Federal rulers of the hinterland.
Certain references have been made in The Times to fear of the consequences of the Federal security forces moving in. In conversation with Federal leaders, although not impugning their honesty and integrity, I got the impression that they would have a very simple form of securing peace, so-called, in Aden Colony. The responsibility of Britain leaving this territory to the mercy of the Federal rulers would be shocking, and I cannot conceive that the Government would so plan a solution.
Lord Shackleton is going to assist the High Commissioner and I hope that he is being given a broad brief to look at the situation again. The people of Aden have been denied any representation whatever since the suspension of the Constitution in September, 1965. Before that, they had no right of control over their own internal security. They have been totally without power since that moment, although I readily recognise that the terrorist incidents at that time did go towards the dislocation of the administration as a whole.
But it is now time that we thought of giving to the people of Aden Colony their own administration. It is time that the Government made that possibility clear, for otherwise there will not be the slightest prospect that terrorism will end. Why should persons in Aden cease to demonstrate if they feel that, if they go quiet, the only result will be the Federal Army moving in?
I hold no brief for the terrorists. They are monstrous killers. All of us must feel disgusted at this traffic in arms and death, which is unworthy of those who organise it across the frontier and is a gross reflection on the Government led by President Nasser. But I believe that what F.L.O.S.Y. is trying to do is to show that, without its participation in the Government of Aden, there will be no peace and no settlement.
Even at this very late hour, I hope that the Government will not tie themselves to the Federation as it is. New ideas could be mooted. I myself have thought that perhaps Aden could be an international port with a U.N. guarantee. Everyone is forgetting, in the welter of political discussion, just what Aden is. It is a port to serve ships and the oil refinery. If we do not get a political solution satisfactory to the people of

Aden, then, with all the bloodshed, Aden will go bankrupt and the argument will be resolved because there will be no Aden. The unemployed population will go back to the Yemen or Somalia. We shall have solved the problem by extinguishing the territory.
No reference has been made yet to the problem of redundancy coming after the departure of British troops. Much has been made of our friends in Malta and our need to care for them. There is, of course, no natural bond between South Arabia and Britain as there is between Malta and Britain but we do have an overall obligation to leave behind a viable territory. Therefore, the answer may lie in Aden being an international port under U.N. guarantee.
Perhaps we shall have to consider a wider confederation which, in time, might even bring in the Yemen as a whole. That is perfectly possible and I hope that it will happen that closer relations will exist between the Federal territories and Saudi Arabia. I hope that there will be relations between the Royalists and the protected areas. That makes common sense. Aden can thrive only if it is a peaceful port and a point of exit for the territories internally, and a point of contact with the ships passing by.
I trust that we will bear two things in mind. The first is that although the United Nations at this moment has failed, Her Majesty's Government should not be discouraged and should bring this question up, perhaps in the Security Council. Russia, supporting Egypt, is involved on the one side and the United States, supporting Saudi Arabia, is involved on the other. I would not be at all surprised if Mr. Gromyko, when he went to Cairo, did not advise caution on the part of the Egyptian Government. The British Government, who have genuinely tried, have a record of support for the United Nations, and might consider this bringing matter up there. We cannot allow it to drift.
It is of the utmost importance that we do not appear to be driving the people of Aden into a Federation that will be cut loose from us in a short time, which would be a betrayal of the people of that port, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government would never intend that.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: In the very short time available, I cannot answer the many interesting points which the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) has raised. I know that he has a knowledge of the Middle East, which is more than I can say for some of the other speakers from his side. I would like to take this opportunity of drawing attention to the attempt of the Labour Government, associated with the Liberal Party, to try to pin the present trouble in Aden upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). A clear policy has developed over the last few days; over the weekend, the Leader of the Liberal Party said that the bloodshed now taking place there is a result of his policy. This is just not so.
I gave figures in an earlier intervention in which I said that the formation of the Federation was in 1962 and that there was plenty of opportunity then to object. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham concluded the agreement in July 1964, but there was no outburst of terrorism then. In 1964 there were only 36 incidents. It is when this Government came to power and it was sensed what was to happen that the rate of incidents went up. When in February, 1966, the Government announced their intention to withdraw from Aden in 1968, the really big stuff came in and, instead of 36 incidents, there were in that year 480. In 1967, incidents are running at the rate of almost 1,500 a year. This is a terrible thing, and to say that it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham is sheer nonsense. The sooner the House and the country knows that the Government, purely from a guilt complex, are trying to throw the blame on my right hon. Friend the better.
I would like to refresh the memory of the Minister who is to reply about what the Foreign Secretary has said at column 1093 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 20th March. He said:
The Government of an independent South Arabia must be given a fair chance to settle in. … This means that not only have we to work out a way to achieve early independence, but, at the same time, to see how the new State can have a real chance to establish itself as an independent State, secure against external aggression."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1967; Vol. 743. c. 1093.]

That is the task facing the Government now. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will honour the pledge that he made in that quotation. Aden has been our responsibility for over 100 years. We cannot leave it to be devoured by the local jackals. I believe that this noise and terrorism and so on does not represent the larger body of the many communities who live in Aden. They want to live in peace.

Mr. Winnick: With the Federation?

Mr. Marten: They are prepared to make a go of it. I feel that British policy must think of the people who are there and not just think of cutting our defence expenditure—this is what Government policy in Aden is about; it is about getting out of east of Suez and cutting defence expenditure. Many Arab lives and other national lives will suffer. Many families will suffer, because the Government want to cut defence expenditure, because they have the selfish idea that they want to save money and to spend it on this country. This debate is about human beings—Arab families and Somali families and so on. The Government have the power to put this matter right, so let them use their power for human purposes and the preservation of life and good order in that part of the world.

8.55 p.m.

Lord Balniel: The House will regret that this debate, on one of the most crucial and urgent issues of foreign affairs, is not a full day's debate. But the present urgency of the situation in Aden and the fact that the Minister without Portfolio is leaving for Aden tomorrow necessitated the debate, although it is of limited time.
It is rather regrettable that the debate has taken place without the Foreign Secretary responding to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), because we have no knowledge of the Government's policy in the light of the present circumstances and we have not been able to criticise their views.
The immediate cause for the debate is the withdrawal of the United Nations Mission from Aden. But equally important has been the absolute bankruptcy in the Foreign Secretary's statement today of positive Government policy in pointing to a clear political objective.


The debate is necessary also because of the confusion which surrounds the Government's policy in Aden. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) called attention to the last words of the leading article in yesterday's Sunday Times. I call attention to the first words of that article:
The Aden situation is now a total mess.
It is for that reason that we have requested this short debate.
I do not wish to spend too much time on the activities of the United Nations Mission. Its activities belong to the past, although the crisis which it precipitated has, so far as I can see, done nothing except to push South Arabia one step closer to disaster. Even the most optimistic right hon. Gentleman opposite had only the most slender hope that the United Nations Mission would contribute constructively to the solution of the problem, because even before the Mission left, its sponsor body, the Committee of 24 of the United Nations, had already decided that it would not circulate any petitions which contained allegations against the United Arab Republic.
Although I do not wish to refer at length to the activities of this Mission, I must refer to them in passing. It is absolutely impossible to justify its behaviour or the remarks of some of its members, if they have been correctly reported in the Press. The Foreign Secretary says that he is at the moment in consultation with the Mission. I hope that he will make it absolutely clear to the Secretary General of the United Nations that this particular Mission, with this membership, will not be invited back, because, looking back on the past week and following on what has happened, I cannot see that it will be able to contribute constructively to a solution of the problem. The remarks of some of its members seem to me to be the embodiment of prejudice and do not reflect the impartial, judicial attitude which one would have required of a United Nations Mission.

Mr. John Lee: If the hon. Gentleman wants to impose some kind of veto over the membership or composition of a United Nations Mission, how on

earth does he expect to get the co-operation of the United Nations in a situation like this?

Lord Balniel: I am not proposing any details. I am merely saying that were the present Mission to return to Aden after what has happened, it would not find a constructive solution to the problem.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Mission ought not to be invited to return because of statements which it has made. Has he not seen that those rumours have been categorically denied?

Lord Balniel: If so, that is one more argument to the case which I have already advanced for the Foreign Secretary opening the debate, when we would have been in a position to know the facts. Apparently, when in London the Mission informed the Foreign Secretary that it was prepared to receive the Federal Ministers as individuals. Yet I understand that when it was in Aden and the Federal Ministers asked to be received as individuals and the High Commissioner invited them to a reception where the Mission would have had the opportunity to meet the Federal Ministers as individuals and not as members of a Government, this opportunity was refused.
So far as I can see, the only people who have benefited from the visit of the Mission to Aden have been the extremists in Aden. I cannot see any purpose in this particular Mission returning, but that is not to say—and here I reiterate what my right hon. Friend has said—that we think that the United Nations should not have a rôle to play in contributing towards a solution in future.
As has been said, any rôle which might be played should come under the auspices of the Security Council. When we were in office, in 1964, we proposed, for instance, that United Nations observers should be stationed in a demilitarised zone between the Yemen and the Federation. I find it quite possible to conceive of a situation when a United Nations presence in South Arabia might contribute towards deterring aggression from outside. I do not see how it can do the job which rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Foreign Secretary. I do not see how it can do the job of developing a Constitution which will lead to independence.
The departure of the United Nations Mission and the absolute bankruptcy of any positive policy in the Foreign Secretary's statement today have created a situation of confusion which can be cleared up now only if we have a clear statement of Government policy from the Foreign Secretary. The longer the confusion exists, the greater the premium on terrorism, and we hope that a clear statement will be forthcoming even though it comes at the end of the debate. We want a clear statement of Government policy on two things: first, on the preservation of law and order during the period before independence and, secondly, on the broad political objectives—how the Government intend to achieve independence and at the same time give security to the independent Federation against external aggression.
I want first to refer to law and order. The Federal Government have asked to take over responsibility for the internal security of Aden. I understand that one battalion of Federal troops is already undertaking internal security tasks. I cannot believe that over any prolonged period a shared responsibility of British and Federal troops for internal security is likely to be satisfactory.
What are the Government's plans? In particular, as I expect an increase in terrorism as the date of independence draws nearer, what in particular are their plans for internal security in the latter months before independence? Is it the responsibility of Lord Shackleton to advise on this? We are entitled to a clearer explanation about his responsibility. Is he being sent out to Aden merely in an advisory capacity or does he, like other Ministers, have an executive rôle? Does he have authority over the High Commissioner? This is something which we are entiled to know.
On the broad political objective, it has always been assumed that the Federation would receive independence in 1968, but the Foreign Secretary today—I speak from memory—said "independence at the earliest possible date". Does the date 1968 still remain operative?
It has always been assumed that independence would be granted to the Federal Government—I emphasise "Federal Government"—to a Federation including Aden Colony. The setting-up of a Federal Constitution was undertaken by

my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and it has been accepted by successive Labour Ministers for 2½ years.
Speaker after speaker on the benches opposite below the Gangway have said that they do not accept the Federal constitution. The Foreign Secretary has no right to criticise my right hon. Friend for establishing a Federal system of Government unless he has an alternative constitution to propose. As so many of his hon. Friends behind him have criticised the federal concept, we are entitled to a clear statement whether the right hon. Gentleman still stands by the concept of independence for the Federal Government.
I recognise, as many hon. Members have said, that Aden Colony consists of more sophisticated people than those living in the hinterland. Of course, I accept that the constitution should be as broadly based as possible, but it is almost inconceivable that the territory should go forward to independence with the hinterland separated politically from the port of Aden. I repeat, I would like a clear answer from the Foreign Secretary about whether he still accepts the concept of a Federal Government on independence.
My last point concerns the security of an independent Federation against external aggression. Surely we are entitled, and the people living out there are entitled, to a clear statement as to how the Federation will defend itself when it becomes independent. The Government should examine the situation in the context of the whole Middle Eastern situation. They must think out, even at this late date, what would be the consequences of a premature withdrawal of British troops before the Federation is able to defend itself. After all, there are 60,000 Egyptian troops in the Yemen, which are a clear threat to the integrity of Aden. The Yemeni Republic Government actually claim sovereignty over Aden. The war has already spilled over into Saudi Arabia on a number of occasions. There are 80,000 Yemenis in Aden. If my information is correct, there is a substantial build-up of Soviet armaments in Somalia. I am told that there is a Soviet base in the Yemen.
The people of the Federation are entitled to a clear statement of how they are to be defended. It seems to us that


the Government are making the classic error of creating a power vacuum with a potential aggressor waiting on the doorstep.
I want to quote the words of the defence correspondent of The Times, who wrote on 10th March:
An agreement is to be prepared between Britain and the South Arabian Federation to provide for British troops to stay in Aden for a limited period after independence is granted in 1968.
On 14th March, I asked the Prime Minister whether that was correct, and he replied:
… there is no correctness in it.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 230.]
I repeat the question. Is it really proposed by the Foreign Secretary that independence shall be granted to the South Arabian Federation and that there should be no provision to defend it after independence?
A number of clear questions have been put to the right hon. Gentleman during the debate. He did not open the debate, and we did not have an opportunity of criticising Government policy, but in a debate of this importance I hope that he will find it possible to answer the points which have been put to him.

9.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): In the 17 minutes which I have left, I will do the best I can—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I understand the Leader of the Opposition to be saying something. I cannot hear him.

Sir Douglas Glover: Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk) rose—

Mr. Brown: I am not clear. The Leader of the Opposition is lying back muttering. Does he want to contribute?

Mr. Edward Heath: Mr. Edward Heath (Bexley) indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman should keep quiet.
In fact, I opened the debate this afternoon—[Interruption.] Yes, I did. At 3.30 I made a statement and answered questions for half an hour. I urged upon the House that, of all occasions, this was the wrong one on which to hold a debate.
We are not having a debate about the internal security or the problems of Aden

and South Arabia. We are having a debate about the internal problems of the party opposite. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was going to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. Because of their problems—

An Hon. Member: Resign.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition decided to move in and apply for this debate, although he knew as well as I do that this was the wrong day for such a debate.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Sir Alec Douglas-Home indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: He also knew, as was mentioned in my speech, that we had offered the Opposition a full day's debate at a time when we could discuss the real issues. But they could not take it because they dare not let the right hon. Member for Streatham get in today. [Interruption.]

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Sir Alec Douglas-Home rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the intervention.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is it not true that we heard from the usual sources that the Budget debate could not be interrupted? Is it not also a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is going to be in Washington for the whole of next week? Would not it have been a fortnight before we could have had this debate?

Mr. Brown: I am—[Interruption.] If the Leader of the Opposition, who is muttering something, has something to say, I will willingly give way to him. Does he want to interrupt me? I am very willing to listen to the right hon. Gentle man—[Interruption.]—and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. George Brown.

Mr. Brown: I am very willing to listen and courteously give way to the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] The Leader of the Opposition either keeps quiet or gets up and speaks.
I told the House this afternoon that we were discussing with the Federal Government of South Arabia the constitutional proposals—the package deal, as it has been called—which I put to them. I told


the House this afternoon, as I said in March, that they required—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown: It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite shouting at me to get on. I am no longer putting up in this House with this silly business of hon. Gentlemen opposite coming into the Chamber and shouting and talking from a seated position.

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman has been offering to give way and I am glad that his courtesy has been accepted. I wonder if he will now speak up for this country and for our future policy in the Middle East?

Mr. Brown: I will try to do that, if I am allowed to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."] I am not putting up with this. It is time that the Opposition was told that if they adopt this attitude every time one winds up a debate they will have to face the responsibility of the country knowing what they are doing.
I told the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire this afternoon that we had something like 10 days to run to the point when the Federal Government would give us their considered views. I told him that I knew a great deal about it at the moment but that it would be a very inconvenient—indeed, impossible—time for me to comment on the subject today. I suggested that I would report to the House as soon as I could tell the House what the situation was; so that, thereafter, we could have a debate timed in consultation with the Opposition—at a point when both would know what the situation was, so that an informed debate could take place.
For reasons of their own—and I repeat this clearly—the Opposition would not take that line at all, and so we have had this debate today. I cannot tell, and I have not the slightest intention of telling, the House what the present position is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If I did I would obviously mess up and complicate the consultations that are now going on. Clearly, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire knows as well as I do that when one is in consultations with another Government one does not, in the middle of them, announce one's

position. He would not do it, and when we sat on the benches opposite we never expected him to do it.

Mr. Peter Kirk: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously not going to give way. Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown: May I say another thing. This debate having been challenged to-day by the Opposition Front Bench—not from those below the Gangway—the attendance on the other side of the House has never been as many as 50 and has mostly been as few as 15. This is again a good commentary on the seriousness with which hon. Members opposite went into it. The Federal Government are at this moment—

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there had not been more than 50 Members on this side of the House, would you have allowed us to be debating this subject now on the Adjournment?

Mr. Brown: Yes, because we had twice as many Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not really a point of order.

Mr. Brown: Hundreds stood up and they all went away.

Mr. Kirk: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Brown: I will, but before I give way let me make it clear that I started with 17 minutes in which to reply. I am still being interrupted.

Mr. Kirk: This is a serious point. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is in negotiation with another Government. Does this mean that he accepts that the Federal Government have got full powers? If so, why does not the United Nations?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that point is worth making, O.K. I am consulting with the Federal Government of the territories that we are talking about.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Which is that?

Mr. Brown: That is not a bad commentary on this, debate. Hon. Members opposite do not even know what territory we are talking about. I repeat that whereas this afternoon's exchange was a real one, this evening's exchange is just a silly exercise. I cannot discuss future policy for the reasons I gave this afternoon, because it would be very wrong, unfair and improper to the Federal Government if I were to do so. The situation generally is fluid because the United Nations Mission is coming here. It is considering coming here. I ask the House to be careful in what they say. Several times it was on the tape, before the exchanges started this afternoon, that the United Nations Mission had said that it was considering coming here. It is in both the evening papers that the Mission is considering coming here. I cannot think of anything more damaging that the Opposition could have done than to insist upon having a debate and making the speeches which they have made.
I repeat what I said this afternoon. The twin aims of our policy are, first, that we should secure an orderly withdrawal of our troops; and, secondly, that we should arrange for or help to arrange for an independent South Arabia by the earliest possible date. Hon Members opposite—those who have come—have, unlike us, a guilt complex about Suez, and this more than anything else is at the heart of what they are saying today. There were the silly words that the right hon. Member for Streatham used about President Nasser.

Hon. Members: Your friend.

Mr. Brown: I should be very proud to call the President of any State my friend. Otherwise how do Governments do business? Perhaps I may quote some words of somebody before me, a great Foreign Secretary: one cannot make foreign policy on the basis of picking the Heads of State that one likes and the Heads of State that one does not like. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Bexley want to speak again? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should not encourage interruptions.

Mr. Brown: But, Mr. Speaker, I was being interrupted, though not according to the due form of the House. The Leader of the House does this all the time. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protest. The House is becoming too good-natured at the moment.

Mr. Brown: The Leader of the Opposition does this all the time.
I said that the twin aims of our policy are these, and these they remain. Lord Shackleton's task, which I have been asked about, is, as I said again at 3.30 today, to go out to give political advice on the spot, to give political guidance on the spot, to relieve our people on the spot of as much as he can of the problems that they have and to keep Her Majesty's Government at home in political touch with the situation there. It is not, as I told the right hon. Gentleman long before he spoke, to run a new exercise. It is not to issue a new policy. As the right hon. Gentleman knows—this is well known—there are moments when it is better to have a Minister on the spot in close touch than not to have one, and this seems to us to be such a moment in the case of Aden, and I believe that in the months ahead this will pay a dividend. I repeat that for those there and those here. I do not believe that the Opposition have the problems that they pretend they have in understanding why.
One last thing: I have been attacked today in words by the right hon. Member for Streatham and by others for trying to get those who exiled themselves from Aden to go back and take a peaceful part in the development of South Arabia. I do not apologise for that. I believe it to be the right thing to do. All the words about whining to this man and whining to the other are silly. The right hon. Gentleman opposite got us into a terrible mess in the Middle East. I believe that the policy that I am pursuing is much better fitted to our needs and to theirs.
I end by appealing to those like Asnag and Mackawee who went away from Aden to go back and play their full and proper part in the development of that territory, and I will do everything I can to help them.

9.29 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has caught my eye, and I want to hear him.

Mr. George Brown: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood from the Opposition Chief Whip that if I sat down one minute early he would like the chance to withdraw the Motion, and that is why I sat down.

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose—[Interruption.]

It being half-past Nine o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

"TORREY CANYON"

Postponed Proceeding on Question,
That this House approves the White Paper on the 'Torrey Canyon' (Command Paper, No. 3246), endorses the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government and resolves to refer to the Select Committee on Science and Technology the question of future measures against the pollution of our shores in the light of the experience gained from the wreck of the 'Torrey Canyon', resumed.

Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: As I was saying when I was interrupted, any seaman has grave doubts what a ship of such a size was doing in such a place on such a course at such a high speed.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker Order. Will hon. and right hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If the weather had been thick at the time, which it was not, or the ship had doubts about her true position, the speed should have been much reduced. The Seven Stones in themselves are not a truly perilous risk. They have good lighthouses in the fairly near vicinity, Wolf Rock and Bishop Rock and Longships, and they have their own light vessel which was on station at the time and which attempted to warn the oncoming "Torrey Canyon".
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) who, I am glad to see, is back in his place again, implied earlier today that the ship was not properly registered. I do not think that that is the true position. I would go a long way with him if he were to say that the ship was not adequately manned.

Mr. Bessell: I did not say the ship was not properly registered. I said she was registered in Liberia, and the whole question of flags of convenience was a matter which needed examination.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will consult the record tomorrow—

Mr. Bessell: I have checked.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: —he will find that I have quoted his precise words—"not properly registered".

Mr. Bessell: I have checked my speech in the HANSARD room and I am quite certain on this point.

Mr. Speaker: I hope we shall not have too many interventions. There are still many hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The record will show what the hon. Gentleman said.
Once aground, and at that speed, and with the amount of hull damage which was obviously done, and with the notoriously gaseous character of the cargo, Kuwait crude, it must have been known that the chances were small and the hazards were great in any attempt to salvage the hull. It must have been known that there was a widespread risk of pollution by the escape of the crude oil. This was inevitable. In my opinion, every effort should then have been made to salvage as much as possible of the cargo without attempting to move the ship.
I know well the difficulties of ownership, of registration, and of charterers, all being of different nationalities, and I know well the difficulties of maritime law concerning salvage, but there is a point where a Government must step in, and I would have thought that in the very early stages, when the weather was still moderate and there was a good chance of doing something to mitigate this nuisance, if not to clear it up altogether, that chance should have been taken.
Later the Government did not show much scruple when authorising the bombing. It would have been a lot better if they had made an earlier decision to attempt to pump out or, alternatively, to blow out—and when I say "blow", I do not mean by high explosive bombs but by compressed air—the cargo of crude. I realise that a gaseous cargo of this nature involves risks, but during those early days many people were still on board, and so far we have had no precise evidence of the way in which the salvage captain died so tragically during the course of his work in the engine room. There are conflicting reports on this point.
The load was 117,000 tons and any small part of that which could have been salvaged and taken into a secure hull would have helped to prevent pollution. The destruction by fire brought

about by bombing or by other means is the resort of the destitute in a case of this nature. We do not yet know whether the cargo itself has been totally destroyed or whether only the light oils have been burnt off, leaving a tarry residue to come ashore later and pollute our beaches.
Hon. and right hon. Members of the Government may laugh, but this will be no laughing matter when it happens. Clearing that sort of substance will make the clearing of ordinary crude oil mere child's play. That is where the Government made their great mistake, and that is where I criticise them.
I acknowledge the difficulties involved, but this at least was a possibility which could have been tackled in those few days between 19th March—the day after the ship foundered—and 23rd March. There is such a manoeuvre as laying off a small tanker on the end of a long warp, with a heavy chain cable springing the warp, and letting that tanker run her engines very slowly astern so as to keep herself taut down to leeward, and then to rig floating hoses or floating blowing lines. That has been done before with success, and it could have been attempted in this case. It is on that ground that I condemn the technical advice which the Government were anxious to take wholesale without considering the alternatives. That is where the fault lay.

9.38 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker, because although I know that many other hon. Members have constituency interests in this matter and I have not, I am a Member of the Select Committee to which this matter will be referred if the Motion is agreed to tonight. Perhaps the best contribution that I can make is to put before the House some of the problems that I foresee arising as a result of the Committee's being given this commission.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology has already involved itself in a fairly substantial study of the nuclear reactor programme and is already committed well up to the Summer Recess, if not beyond, on that exercise. One of the tasks on which it is engaged will involve it in making a recommendation to the House, at the appropriate moment,


as to the future number of consortia dealing with the nuclear energy programme. There is some urgency about that matter. I and, I am sure, other members of the Select Committee would regard it as highly regrettable if, because of what we are being asked to do in the Motion, if approved, we had to drop the programme we are already engaged on.
There are 14 members of the Select Committee. Not all of them are able to turn up at every meeting. We have an enormous amount of background reading to do. We have to study written evidence as well as pay great attention to the oral evidence given before us. After we have heard the evidence, we obviously have to consider what our next step should be. This in itself is a big enough job. In addition, we have to consider what visits we should make outside London to keep ourselves fully informed of the problems we are considering.
As a purely mechanical problem, the task which will be given to the Select Committee if the Motion is approved, of considering the whole matter of preventing a repetition of the type of oil pollution of our coasts which resulted from the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon", is enormous. However willing we may be, we shall inevitably have to ask certain members of the Committee to drop out of the study of the nuclear reactor programme and see whether we can form one group of the Select Committee to consider the "Torrey Canyon" matter, because I think that it would be the wish of the House, if the Motion is approved, that the matter should be dealt with with the utmost expedition.
It is important that the Select Committee carries out its investigation whilst memories are fresh. We have seen during the course of the debate how quickly memories become distorted. They will become even more distorted the further from the event we get.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) is in his place. The members of the Select Committee greatly appreciate the guidance he gives us as Chairman of the Select Committee. All members of the Committee, whatever their party, have great admiration for the way the hon. Gentleman conducts himself in the Chair. None of us would wish to see his already difficult job made more difficult.
I ask the Government seriously to consider how urgent they regard the study of this matter to be by the Select Committee. If we begin this study immediately, we shall run two risks. First, certain international investigations are now proceeding. We do not know what the outcome of them will be. If we are too precipitate, we may be made to look ludicrous because we have reached our conclusions without weighing all the evidence which will eventually become available. On the other hand, if we are to go ahead with only part of the inquiry, somebody will start criticising us; we shall be receiving evidence, presumably from outside, which will try to cover all aspects; there will be an immense secretarial job for the Committee in sorting out the evidence submitted to us.
I am not certain whether any Select Committee, with the best will in the world, can hope to cope adequately with a problem as important as the "Torrey Canyon" one, if we have to continue sitting in Committee Room 16. This is a matter of considerable public interest. This Select Committee is already hearing evidence in public. I believe that it was the first Select Committee to do so. To that extent, we broke new ground. Every member of the Committee is acutely aware that the witnesses have their backs to any member of the public who chooses to turn up. The acoustics of the room are appalling. The "Torrey Canyon" matter is of such an enormously wide compass that the public interest in the Committee's deliberations is likely to be much more intense than it is in the nuclear reactor programme.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sympathetic to the point which the hon. Gentleman is making, but I hope that he will not make it in too much detail in this debate.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I well understand that it would be wrong for me in any way to prejudge what the Committee itself will decide, Mr. Speaker, and I was not seeking to do that. All I am doing is asking the House to visualise some of the problems which will confront us. I believe that the Government, very properly, if I may say so, are anxious that this inquiry should be seen to be thorough, should be open to the public, should be open to anyone who wishes to give


evidence, and open for anyone to submit written evidence.
All these aspects of the problem confront us with a considerable mechanical difficulty which the Committee as at present constructed and at present served cannot, it seems to me, hope to meet in the way we would all wish it to be met. I believe that the Committee can be so staffed and serviced as to do it, but I ought to tell the House that we are at present in considerable difficulties for the service of both typists and printers. There is one clerk who serves the Committee, and no one could be more assiduous in his duties than he.
I believe that we shall have to duplicate our duties, having some members on nuclear reactors and some on the "Torrey Canyon", so that we shall need additional staff. I wonder whether the Government have fully considered, with the Leader of the House and the apropriate authorities, whether the staff are available. Unless they are, we shall fall down on the job, and none of us wishes to do that.
I have listened to the debate with the utmost interest, and I have listed some of the issues which have been put before us. I shall try to summarise those which I have noted on the way through the debate. First, there is the whole question of the legal position. I do not know from the Motion whether it is envisaged that we shall go into that matter. I can foresee that, whether it be the intention or not, we shall inevitably be involved in some legal issues, not only in international maritime law but in our own law and the rôle of local authorities. Many hon. Members, for instance, have talked about having a Minister in charge of the seven Departments which are concerned in an issue of this kind. This in itself would call for expert advice.
Next, there is the need for supplies to be made available to local authorities. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) used the phrase, "a blueprint for action on massive pollution", and, presumably, the Committee will be asked to advise on such a blueprint. At least, it is a possible subject for us to have to discuss.
There are, then, all the technical questions about whether demolition charges should be placed on board, whether bombing should be indulged in, or

whether some other method should be used. There is the whole question of the use of decontaminating agents, the viscosity of oil, the feasability of firing oil whether in the ship or on the surface of the sea. There is also the question of detergent poisoning of flora and fauna.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) raised what is, perhaps, one of the most important matters of all, the consideration we must give to the possibility of the wreck of a nuclear-powered ship in the future. This is a new science on which we shall require much advice, but I am beginning to wonder who will give it, as the United States snip "Savannah" is the only nuclear-powered civil ship I know of.
There is the whole question of the use of booms, and pollution of the sub-strata of the beaches, which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) raised. Further, there is the question of the size, speeds and routes of tankers, and the subject of navigational aids. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said that, perhaps, alarm clocks would have been more valuable than radar in this instance.
There are the questions of flags of convenience and of salvage risks. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lt.-Cmdr. Maydon) raised the question of the feasibility of a long tow of a ship which has been holed as badly as the "Torrey Canyon" was. There is the question whether a Lloyd's A1 certificate has much relation to the standard of the crew or the captain of a ship.
I think that I have said enough to confirm what the hon. Member for Bodmin said as he concluded his speech, that this will be a tough run for the Committee. It certainly will be, and I am anxious to see that the Committee is capable of reaching the finishing post with credit, having done a job which will be of some value.
Perhaps the most pertinent question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson)—the question of how the accident happened. I suppose that a quick answer would be that it happened because somebody forgot that it is never very wise at sea, or anywhere else, to take a collision course for a solid object, be it rock, lighthouse, light-ship or mainland. I am


reminded of a quotation from Admiral Nimitz's book. The quotation hangs below a picture of Admiral Nimitz in the wardroom of the United States nuclear submarine, "Sea Wolf". It says:
Nothing is more dangerous than that a seaman should fail to take the necessary precautions lest they should prove to have been unnecessary.
Safety at sea for a thousand years has depended on exactly the opposite philosophy.
Possibly the captain of the "Torrey Canyon" would agree.
If we are to go into the whole of this question in the Select Committee, everyone recognises the stint being given to hon. Members of that Committee. To do the job with the assiduity we should, and within the time we should take, hon. Members will have to continue their work during Parliamentary Recesses; they should be equipped with a better meeting place than they have, and they should have a bigger staff.
I am not sure that the Government really thought all this out before asking us to take on this job. If we take it on we shall do our best, but it will be very difficult. I hope that in his reply the right hon. Gentleman will at least give an assurance that he will go into this matter with the Leader of the House and the appropriate authorities, to make certain that we are not given a task that is impossible to perform adequately, and that it will be recognised that the hon. Members concerned will be doing a job that is often given to a separate tribunal sat up for the purpose, with trained counsel to question witnesses and so forth. We are as yet probing how we shall properly complete the job we are already doing.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, may I remind the House that quite a number of hon. Members have been sitting all through the debate since half-past three, trying to take part in the debate.

Mr. Atkinson: I withdraw my question, Mr. Speaker.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). I hope that he will understand that I am anxious to close my speech as quickly as possible.
In conclusion, I ask the Government if they will at least recognise that to some extent they are asking us in the Motion to prejudge what I hope the Committee will be able to inform the House more fully about. I am prepared to do that tonight, but I do so on the understanding that the Government should feel absolutely free if, after further contemplation, they decide that another form of inquiry would be more appropriate to carry out this work.
Having said that, I hope that they will give every attention to the great problems with which they will confront the Committee and that the inquiry, whatever its form, will ensure that never again shall we have the difficulties arising from an oil tanker sinking at sea.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: It is with considerable pride that I rise this evening as the Member of Parliament for Honiton. It was a year and three weeks ago that I last rose from this very same place. There is a certain satisfaction in being able to do so now, not with a majority of 10, but with a majority of only 10 less than 16,000.
I wish to pay tribute to the work of the late Mr. Robert Mathew, who was a Member of this House for twelve years.
Mr. Mathew died at an early age. He had played a considerable part in the activities of this House, particularly those concerned with foreign affairs and Europe, having twice served on the delegations to the Council of Europe and Western European Union. Indeed, he culminated his career by being a Minister at the Foreign Office. I believe that few people knew that he spoke seven languages. In his constituency, he was judged as being a most admirable and excellent M.P., looking after local affairs. I have a difficult task to follow in his footsteps.
Might I also asked that the sympathy of this House should go to his widow and his children? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Mrs. Mathew was well known in this House. Indeed, hon. Members might like to know that numerous members of the staff have asked me since my return how Mrs. Mathew and the family are. I think that it is a particular tribute to the part she played in supporting her


husband that she should have made that impression here.
Obviously, in this place, as with any other, one can only cease to be a maiden once and therefore I shall only say about my constituency that obviously it was and stood to be considerably affected by the disaster that took place on 18th March. The lovely seaside resorts, rivers and coombs turn the division of Honiton into probably the most beautiful in the country. Indeed, perhaps the only thing that might be said adversely about it is that too many people have known Honiton not necessarily for its beauty but for the smoke as one attempted to get through the town which bears that name. We now have a by-pass and at some other time I must turn to the parking regulations which exist there and which were never there before we had the by-pass.
I want to say one other thing and I promise not to take up too much time. During my sabbatical days—and I say this with great respect and from a degree of affection for the House of Commons—I have seen from the outside that often the House of Commons appears to take itself too seriously, that people outside do not consider that our day-to-day routine is as important as we sometimes think it is. Indeed, I believe that the influence of the House would be very much greater if hon. Members realised that fact.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am fascinated by this digression but the hon. Gentleman must come to the Motion.

Mr. Emery: Indeed I will, Mr. Speaker. I must first declare a specific interest in that I have associations with both oil and chemical companies. I hope it may be of some use to the House that I can speak with some expert knowledge.
I want to pay tribute to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his colleague from the Navy Department for the extremely friendly and helpful way in which they always dealt with any inquiry that came from hon. Members while tackling this disaster. Whether one always agrees with them or not, I must pay tribute to the way they dealt with hon. Members from the South-West during this period.
There are two basic questions in any post-mortem. They are: did the Government act quickly enough and was their action adequate? There is no doubt—it would be quite wrong of the Government to suggest the contrary—that there was major concern throughout the country about whether the Government had acted quickly enough. After all, it was The Times which said, a matter of eleven days after the event:
The British Government … have managed nothing better than the dubious expedient of assembling flotillas of small craft to squirt detergent at the perimeter of the drifting oil slicks…".
The Times, whatever one may feel about it, would only make a statement like that if there was serious concern within the country. It is correct to ask: did the Government act quickly enough?
The Government could answer "Yes" to both questions I have put if one takes into account the circumstances which have arisen since the disaster. It would have put that answer in the gravest possible doubt if the weather had turned against the Government and against the South-West during the fourth or fifth day after the disaster. Then, there is no shadow of doubt that the beaches of the South-West would have been inundated with the most immense deposit of oil that we have ever known. There is no doubt that at that time we would have been quite unprepared for it.
The local authorities acted extremely quickly and incisively to ensure that action was taken to deal with the situation. It is true that local authorities had received no written communication from any Ministry a matter of 12 days after the ship had run aground. Surely the Minister of Housing, of all people, must realise that town clerks would not give legal advice to their authorities about what aid they could get from the rates unless there was some written communication from the Minister.
It is no good the Government saying that this was announced in the Press or that town clerks could have seen it on television. Either of these arguments, as the Home Secretary would know, would be no use in a court of law if there was a dispute about what local authorities could claim from the Government. Although the Prime Minister had said that Ministers were in contact with local authorities, and this is much more true


of Cornwall than of Devon, I must point out that on Easter Sunday, seven clear days after the vessel had run aground, a telephone call was made to a number of town clerks in my division, inviting them to a meeting in Plymouth on Easter Monday.
Some went along with their borough engineers. Their visit was taken up with a very small demonstration of how oil could be dispersed from the beaches. No conference was held on the legal problems or the rate assistance problems. I can only tell the Minister that these town clerks returned very upset that they had been called away on Easter Monday to such little purpose.

Mr. Foley: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that on the previous Saturday, the Easter Saturday, I had a meeting—which was convened through the good offices of the officers of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in the area—with the representatives of those Devon authorities which had a coastline? That was seven days after the "Torrey Canyon" went aground.

Mr. Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, which I accept. But this was a meeting about which two of my local authorities did not know anything and which they did not attend. Just as I will accept the hon. Gentleman's statement, I am sure that he will accept that I am not trying to misrepresent the situation. The Monday meeting was the first meeting of which two major urban districts in my constituency had notice.
An aide memoire about the problem which confronts a local authority when oil hits its beaches is essential and it should be sent to local authorities as soon as possible after the disaster is known.

Mr. Foley: At that Saturday meeting, the local authorities asked for an aide memoire, and it was given to them at the end of the meeting.

Mr. Emery: Then I find myself in extreme difficulty. I attended a meeting called by the Minister on the Tuesday after he is suggesting that this was done. I was informed only at ten minutes before midnight on Easter Monday that there would be a meeting at 11.30 on the Tues-

day. I am told that people were trying to contact me all day. But I was at my home, and it would have been quite evident to anybody who bothered to look in "Who's Who" what the address was.
At the meeting I pressed solidly for an aide memoire. I was not given the information which I have just been given. Certain Ministers at that meeting promised that they would send to the members attending it all the details which were available and would continue to do so. If that is correct, why were we not told that at our meeting in Plymouth on the Tuesday?

Mr. Bessell: I am sure that memories are at fault. At that meeting we received an aide memoire on oil disposal. Following the meeting, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, on his own suggestion, sent out a detailed statement to the local authorities.

Mr. Emery: I have in my hand the piece of paper which we were given at that meeting. If this is an aide memoire on the clearance of oil from the beaches, obviously the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) does not understand the problem, because it was so minute and so lacking in detail.
I do not make this as a party political point. I am not interested in the party political aspect of the matter. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite can laugh, but if their authorities were hit by this problem—and any area on the coast may be—they would want to have the best available information.
At the time there was in existence a report produced by a number of experts on the problem of Kuwait oil—exactly the same oil—in spoilage in Milford Haven. It dealt not only with manpower organisation, but with methods of removing floating pollution, pollution on rocks, sea walls and hard surfaces, in rock pools, on beaches, on mud flats, on reeds and grasses and also with the cleaning of boats and rehabilitation. The hon. Member for Bodmin must know that the sort of information which the local authorities were given was certainly not in that kind of detail. When examining what has happened, it is of the greatest importance that we should be able to ensure that we can learn from experience so as to benefit in future.
I have a number of specific questions. The Home Secretary said that the cost of the operation so far was about £2 million. Will the Minister of Housing say by how much he believes that figure is likely to be exceeded before the problem is solved? We would understand it he were unable to be precise, but can he give a contingency figure which his and the other Ministries concerned may be allowing, so that we can get some sort of estimate of how much the final figure will be?
The control of shipping in British territorial waters is not a problem affecting only the South-West. It affects Tees-side, where a vast amount of oil is now being brought to new refineries, the Thames, Southampton, Milford Haven, as well as Liverpool and parts of Scotland. To say that this problem is being referred to international committees is not good enough. The oil companies in this country would be only too delighted to co-operate with the Minister immediately in designing specific regulations which, if they did not have the force of law, would at least have the co-operation of the companies and result in a little more coordination in the movement of heavy tankers immediately off our coasts than there appears to be now. I urge the Minister not to postpone this matter while he waits for international committees to report. Everyone knows how long that could take, and the country would welcome speedy action by the Government.
One of the issues which has been raised throughout the country and in the debate has been that of the size of tankers. It would be popular to suggest that tankers must be much smaller than major tankers now are. Before hon. Members propose limitation of the size of tankers, they should realise that large bulk carriage is a method of getting fuel oil more cheaply to these islands than in any other way. If we were to take action to work for the limitation of size of tankers, this would represent a cost which would have to be borne by the consumer.
I have tried to get some information, because one paper carried a report suggesting that all tankers should be limited to 10,000 tons. If that were done, the cost to the consumer, let alone the capital cost which would have to be met by companies, would be likely to approach

£100 million in less than three years. Therefore let nobody glibly talk about limitation in tanker size without realising the likely cost to the consumer.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Has my hon. Friend considered the section—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene. Interventions prolong speeches. There are Members who have been waiting since half-past three to take part in the debate.

Mr. Emery: I listened with great interest to the point made by my hon. Friend concerning speed limits. The point which I have made enforces what my hon. Friend said about decisions concerning the control of shipping within coastal waters.
I turn quickly to ask a question on the problem of residuals. It is well known that once the lighter fractions of oils have been burnt off, whether by withering or by fire, from crude oil, the residuals are much more difficult to remove once they have been washed ashore. If these residuals sink, as is possible, they may be thrown up on the coastline for many months.
Is the Minister prepared to keep standby arrangements available so that if tarry or bituminous residuals are thrown up on beaches, they can be dealt with? Secondly, has he any scientific information about how great this problem is likely to be because of the action that has come about since the clearance of the "Torrey Canyon" and specifically concerning the type of detergents that have been used?
I therefore turn, in the concluding part of my speech, to action for the future. Will the Minister tell the House about the adequacy of the detergents which have been used? It was put to me early on in this affair by one of his hon. Friends that scientific information showed that the types of detergent did not really matter in operating on the oil slicks for the purpose of clearing them. I have received information which is in contrast to that and which shows that some detergents are much more effective, even when one takes into consideration the immense amount of wastage which occurs—and there is, of course, massive wastage.
What action has the Treasury taken concerning approved lists, and does the Minister feel that enough research has gone into this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not think me discourteous, but there are quite a number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Emery: I said that I was coming to the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and, having sat through all but 20 minutes of the debate, I have deliberately cut out any points which have been raised earlier.
Secondly, in considering action for the future, may I ask him about a standby arrangement? The problem is one which can only be dealt with by quick action if, for example, it should strike overnight. It is not only a matter of a similar disaster occurring again, but something which can be caused by tankers cleaning their tanks, and it is a problem which can occur anywhere round our coats. Can the Minister say that he believes that it is essential to have some standby organisation which can go into action immediately that we hear of further oil

pollution on our beaches? It is well within the understanding of the House that it could happen in the areas of two local authorities who are quite incapable of coping with such a situation themselves. When it affects small local authorities, it is a major problem for the future.
In our whole consideration of the catastrophe, it is important not only that we should have had this debate, and I am sure that this matter should be considered by the Select Committee. In that connection, may I urge the Minister that, if problems arise such as those which have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), he will take us through the usual channels the possibility of enlarging the Select Committee specifically to deal with them so that the Committee can report to the House as speedily as possible. Let us make certain that the file is not closed now, as has so often been the case when we have had debates in the House. Let us make sure that we have learned from the disaster so that, if it occurs again, we shall be able to act slightly more efficiently than happened on this occasion.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. W. H. Loveys: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Peter Emery) on an extremely interesting speech. I want particularly to welcome him back after his triumph at the recent by-election, and I congratulate him on the way he touched on parking problems in Honiton when he was supposed to be discussing this White Paper.
He made some interesting points, particularly those about the difficulties of liaison between the Government and local authorities, which rather emphasised the need for dealing with oil pollution at a national level. We must be much more prepared for future attacks than we are at present.
The main object of the House in this Motion, which is mainly to approve the White Paper, is to learn what lessons we can from what the Prime Minister has himself referred to as "a national disaster". I have no intention of opposing the White Paper. I think that it is right and proper that it should have been published, and no doubt it is an accurate description of the events which have taken place and the action which has been taken. It would not be particularly useful to spend too much time during the debate having a general post mortem on the action taken by the Government in their dilemma or to claim necessarily that a Conservative Government would have taken very different action. That is hypothetical, although I have no doubt that, in one or two important matters, very different action would have been taken.
There is one criticism which I would make. I know that this has been touched on many times, but I make no apology for referring to it again because it is the most important issue, and it refers to the timing of the effort to destroy the oil remaining in the tanker.
I feel that the only excuse for it would have been if it had been possible to pump out the oil into another tanker, and I accept the Home Secretary's remarks when he opened the debate and made it quite clear for the first time that this was not practical and could not have been done. That made it essential to destroy the oil as soon as possible.
I remain unconvinced by the statements of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and other Ministers in reply to Questions in the House and the remarks in the White Paper about the delay in this matter. In the seven days which elapsed between the visit to the tanker by the chief salvage officer of the Department and the bombing, the majority of the oil was allowed to escape from the ship and cause havoc and suffering to bird life, fishing interests, desecration of the beaches and enormous expense in the cleaning up operations.
Paragraph 10 of the White Paper states:
Until the ship broke up, the best professional advice available to the Government was that, although the chances of refloating were not as high as the salvors believed, this course still held possibilities of success.
That does not seem a strong enough argument. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut-Commander Maydon) pointed out, if one is to conduct this type of operation properly one must have a long period of good weather, but unfortunately the weather was not good at that time.
The next question which must be asked is about the need to obtain the permission of the owners. I appreciate the difficulties involved in this matter. The Prime Minister said that the owners' permission was not sought when the bombing took place. That being so, the need to obtain permission should not have presented any difficulty at an earlier stage, either.
It must be admitted that a difficult situation was faced and that it is easy to be wise after the event. Nevertheless, many of my hon. Friends advocated the course that was finally taken long before the Government decided to take that action. Much trouble could have been averted had a bold decision been taken earlier. We certainly have a definite lesson to learn from this experience.
These remarks comprise my main criticism of the Government's handling of the affair. As I said, the main object of this debate should be to look to the future. Although the most important aspect of our consideration must be to prevent a similar occurrence, I am glad to note that paragraph 46 of the White


Paper refers to there being an early meeting of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. Future incidents of this type are probable, since it is not possible to legislate against human error. A leading article in the New Statesman of 31st March summed the matter up well when it stated:
A large oil tanker is equipped with the most refined navigational aids and is commanded by seamen of great experience. The Seven Stones Reef is a well known navigational hazard. The chance that the 'Torrey Canyon' would strike on the Seven Stones Reef was negligible—but it happened".
That summed it up, perhaps drily and laconically, but accurately. The biggest understatement made during the debate was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), who said that there must have been something wrong with the course taken by the "Torrey Canyon". How right he was.
We must have definite plans laid down for the future for the dispersing of oil at sea and for the cleaning of beaches should any future accident regrettably occur. We need to look at the whole problem as a national one and be told whether the Government will give full aid, including 100 per cent, grants to local authorities, and I agree with what has been said about a co-ordinating committee.
This whole debate to my constituents and to me personally comes at an extremely ironic time because I initiated an Adjournment debate on a similar but smaller problem on 6th February of last year. I asked then that the Government should not merely make sympathetic noises in reply to my remarks. But that is what I got, and nothing more. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, whom I am pleased to see here, said that cleaning up the beaches was not a Government responsibility and that no grants were available. Yet the same hon. Gentleman, during this affair, was sent to Cornwall in charge of the whole operations. He said that the local authorities there would have a 75 per cent, grant plus anything in addition that would be required to meet a cost of more than a 2d. rate. In other words, there has been a complete, utter and absolute reversal of Government policy. No wonder the Under-Secretary looks at me a bit sheepishly as we meet in the Lobby. He is looking a bit sheepish tonight. I like him immensely, and

that is why I wish I could pay tribute to him as the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and other West Country Members have done because he has given their local authorities a 75 per cent, grant whereas he has not given other authorities a single penny.
I welcome the Government's decision. It would be niggardly of me not to do so. But one can surely understand the feelings of the local authorities in my constituency which are still clearing up oil from their beaches entirely at the ratepayers' expense while their colleagues a little further along the coast are getting a 75 per cent, grant for this action.
I am not asking for retrospective legislation. I am not even asking for retrospective action. But I want the Minister to appreciate that I am serious when I say that I hope that in fairness and justice, the 75 per cent, grant will be made available for oil clearance work taking place from the date of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. I trust that he will give this matter serious consideration. I do not say this facetiously. If the wind had not changed, if it were still blowing from the south-west, the Chichester constituency beaches could well be affected now by "Torrey Canyon" oil. This oil could be mixing with the oil of the previous disaster. What would then be the grant aid situation? Who could tell which was the "Torrey Canyon" oil and which was the oil from the previous occurrence?
I am terrified, Mr. Deputy Speaker, lest I should be ruled out of order in mentioning my constituency further. I will therefore conclude by reiterating two of the main lessons which I hope we have learned from this disaster: first, the need to take early and bold action to destroy oil in tankers which are involved in accidents which could seriously pollute our seas and beaches; and secondly, to deal with future incidents of this nature on a national scale with full Exchequer support.

10.33 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: This is essentially a practical matter and not really a party political one, and at this time of night I wish to deal quickly with a few practical points which have occurred to me.
I agree with some of the criticisms which have been levelled at the way in


which the Government have handled this problem, but I should like to sum up the situation in this way. Overall the Government were in the hands of the Navy throughout. So it is perhaps not surprising that in the end, and for the most part, the Government did most of the right things.
On the practical points, I am personally convinced that demolition charges would have been a better way of dealing with this situation than bombing. I say this with some assurance because, curiously enough, in 1940 I was concerned with, so to speak, a "Torrey Canyon" in reverse. This was when the Admiralty collected a dozen old tankers and tried to put them into Calais and Boulogne to smoke out and burn up the invasion barges which were being prepared by the Germans to carry out the invasion of Britain. This was what Winston Churchill at the time called his attempt to singe Hitler's moustache. This operation was put in charge of Captain Agar, V.C., and, without going into any of the details, the lessons we learned from this operation, which was eventually frustrated, were first, that it is difficult to burn oil on water, and secondly, that charges can be laid both for breaking open the tanks and igniting the oil inside those tanks. I believe that probably the most valid criticism of the Government's action is that during the calm, during the time just after the ship had stranded and the crew were on board, arrangements were not made to do this very simple thing. It is simple. I have done it with my own hands.
Another practical point which I think important for the future is that buoyant booms should be available. There are available commercial patterns of these buoyant booms which could be strung round any wreck which might occur in any way, whether through collision or stranding. There are booms like a giant cycle inner tube, which could be towed out by tugs very rapidly to any position to encircle any wreck. Of course, they cannot contain all the oil which might seep out, but they would limit the spread of the oil and make it easier to handle by whatever method decided upon.
Many people in this debate have referred to sea birds. I would like to join in the tribute which has been paid

to those who are doing what they can about this problem. I very much fear, however, that a lot of those efforts will fail. I can remember that in the days when I was a child in the West Country birds were contaminated by oil even then, and however much we sought to clean them and free them from the oil it frequently happened that many were washed ashore dead on the next tide. We never saw a seagull in any way imperfect; every seagull is a complete and perfect thing. It is a fact of the law of nature that any seagull in any way imperfect is pecked to death by those which are perfect.
As so many hon. Members have said, the important thing in this debate is to look to the future, and I am sure that is right, and I would suggest, looking to the future, that the Government's first step should be directed towards preventing ships going ashore and from colliding. Incidentally, we have heard in this debate very little discussion about how the "Torrey Canyon" got aground. Many people have asked me, "How could she get aground in broad daylight and in such a position?" No one who has ever commanded a ship thinks to himself, "How could she get aground?" His immediate reaction, if he is honest with himself, is, "There, but for the grace of God.…" Because, however much equipment, radar, echo sounders, and other navigational aids we have, there will always be an element of human error.
There was for the area of the Seven Stones a Decca navigational chart. I have a chart here showing the area. Had the officer of the watch gone up on to the bridge and just pressed three little knobs, instantaneously and with absolute accuracy he would have obtained the exact position of the ship. Charts are available for waters all round the British Isles, and available to any ship, and ships should be equipped with such apparatus.
Yet although this completely reliable system is available, and although there are so many aids available to the navigator, it is still possible to chart the wrong lane, because of ordinary human fallibility. I think it was the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) who, earlier in the debate, referred to the alarum clock being


a navigational instrument. It was a valid point which he had. I myself have had a squadron of frigates in the North Sea, and seen French ships coming across from port to starboard, and we have blown sirens, and shone searchlights upon them, and finally had to take emergency action to avoid collision—simply because these navigational aids do breed a false sense of security, and the chap on watch just does not keep a proper look out.
One thing is quite clear for the future. Several hon. Members have said this. Tankers will become, and must become for economic reasons, larger and larger all the time. This is a fact of life, and we as a maritime nation have to face the fact.
With regard to flags of convenience, I would emphasise very strongly what was said from these benches earlier, that the way to deal with the problem is to create conditions in this country in which it is more advantageous and profitable to operate ships under the Red Ensign.
In this context I would emphasise the importance of the Merchant Navy to Britain, which is essentially a trading nation—everything should be done to encourage the Merchant Navy—and the enormous contribution which the existence of a thriving Merchant Navy makes towards the balance of payments. Incidentally, the navigational expertise of the Merchant Navy has justly been famous for a great many years.
The whole subject of the routing of shipping, particularly in the Channel, needs constant examination and overhaul. The Straits of Dover at present are in particular a nightmare for the captain of any ship. I agree with what was said earlier, that I.M.C.O. is doing valuable work, but the decisions of such an international organisation, because of the ramifications, must be slow. The Government should get together with the British Chamber of Shipping and take urgent measures to tighten the control of shipping in British territorial waters and approaching those waters. That is something that could be done nationally and without involving international delays. In this connection the Government should pay heed to the shipping industry and to the tanker owners because these people know their jobs.
Vast quantities of oil are imported into the United Kingdom during the course of a year. The remarkable statistic is about £600 million worth of oil a year. Perhaps the most astonishing thing about the whole question is that accidents such as occurred to the "Torrey Canyon" are relatively few and far between and that spillage is very slight. This in itself is a tribute to a very efficient and remarkable industry, the oil industry.

10.42 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I pay tribute to the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Army, the Royal Air Force, and the firemen who brought along their static water tanks, without which it would have been impossible to get the detergent mixed on the beaches. I also pay tribute to the farmers who lent their bulldozers, the fishermen and other civilian volunteers. One has to remember that this happened over Easter and that many people gave up their Easter leave. Particular attention should be paid to the Royal Marines, who went out in extremely rough seas and prevented the oil at the beginning from coming ashore, and also instructed the fishermen.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) in thanking the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for allowing West Country Members of Parliament to meet them on two occasions. I think that the right hon. Gentleman found that the Conservative and Liberal Members were constructive and tried to help him, and he was considerate enough to hear our points of view. We were rather ignorant about the background history, but I think that we were able to co-operate and give satisfaction to some of our constituents who were worried.
To pick up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, the instructions—not the oil pollution ones but the ones to local authorities—went out rather late, not until after 28th March. We were told that we should get other documents, but up to date I have received none and I hope that the Ministry will keep in touch with the local authorities in future. I should like to know why the Town Clerk of Plymouth was not invited to the first meeting. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) called


on the Lord Mayor, but the Town Clerk and his officials were not invited to the first meeting, although they were invited to the meeting later on at Exeter.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The point was that the meeting of the county clerks was related specifically to the establishment of control centres at Exeter. Plymouth was not involved because it was self-contained. That is why I went out of my way to call on the Lord Mayor and to see that the position was satisfactory.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am glad to hear that. I know that the hon. Gentleman called on the Lord Mayor, for which I thank him. I am glad that he thought that Plymouth was so efficiently run and could therefore take care of itself.
I understand that the lightship has now been moved back into position near the Seven Stones, but I should like to know how clear the shipping lane is now, and whether other ships have been warned about the wreck which is still lying there. We realise that smaller ships can get round, but what directions have been given to shipping generally as to the width of the channel and what size of ship can get through?
I should also like to have some information about D.S.I.R. I understand that it has been studying the problem of the removal of oil of this type from beaches for about three years, and that it has already used some substance at Milford Haven. Was this the same substance as that used by the Navy when it began spraying detergent before the Government took action, or was that type of detergent found to be unsatisfactory? I should also like to know why trawlers were taken from Plymouth and Brixham when some were available in Newlyn and could have been used.
Will the trawler owners receive any compensation? I gather that the detergent is very detrimental, particularly if there is any cork in the construction of a boat. Apparently it eats through cork quite quickly. Many of the trawler people would like to know what compensation they will receive. In any case, their trawlers will need a great deal of

cleaning before they can be used again.
In future, will a number of booms be kept ready in the neighbourhood of ports? I understand that the original slick was solid and thick, and that if booms had been put round it it could have been dragged away and eventually set light to, instead of being allowed to disperse.
The hon. Member who spoke about getting the ship off the Seven Stones was being a little optimistic. The Seven Stones rocks are composed of extremely strong granite, and a ship travelling at 17 knots would pile itself up on them very hard. I consider that the Government had only one alternative, namely, to fire the oil as soon as possible.
I agree that a Minister should be appointed with special responsibility for the co-ordination of this work in future. I suggest that a type of organisation should be established, perhaps under a Civil Defence officer, on the lines of the Royal Lifeboat Institution. It is not only oil that soils our beaches; our seas are becoming the dustbins of the world. This must be stopped. It is a danger not only to health but to fish and bird life. I hope that as a result of this incident the right hon. Gentleman will set up some organisation on the lines I have suggested.
I gather that the "Torrey Canyon" was classed as 100 A.1 at Lloyds; therefore we must consider that Lloyds thought that it was a fairly well-run ship. I should like to know whether the Minister can now tell us why it was so much off course. Was it true that at the last minute it had to take avoiding action in respect of some fishing vessels which unexpectedly got in its way?
We have heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles), who is an expert on radar, that it is not always satisfactory. I would like to know how satisfactory the Decca equipment is, and whether it can be used in future. It has been proved extremely satisfactory for aircraft and I would have thought that it was a more accurate type of instrument.
When the Government consider action for the future, would they not think that £100 is too small a fine for letting out oil? This is something which is very relevant, because while the "Torrey Canyon" was on the rocks helicopters and other aircraft flying over and around


her actually saw other ships discharging oil and working out their tanks and blaming it, so we are told, on the "Torrey Canyon". We should keep a better watch on ships in the future. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester mentioned Dover, and I understand that at present there are about two thousand ships going through the Dover Strait every year. How many go round the south-western beaches? If those that do go round let out only a certain amount of oil this can mount up. Should not consideration be given to having special lanes in the future?
I would ask what are the tests on detergents used for destroying the oil. How many firms had tested their products, and how many were tested by the Government? I ask because I understand that Slikgone was used at 12s. a gallon, whereas BP 1002 as it is known was available at 7s. a gallon; but that was not recommended. What tests were made of the various detergents available? Or was it simply that there was a sufficient supply of one detergent to hand but not sufficient of another? Shall we have sufficient tests in the future in order to decide which is the more useful should an accident occur again?
I urge that there should be consideration of the suggestion we put forward to the right hon. Gentleman for the use of hovercraft to clean anyhow the edges of our beaches. Would they emulsify the detergents and the oil more quickly? We have been told that this might be considered; and is it necessary now to keep on spraying the sea? We shall need to keep our beaches properly clean perhaps for years to come especially when we remember that when 2,000 tons of oil escaped off the coast of California in 1957, the effect of the slick lasted for eight years. The trouble, too, came not so much from the oil. What did the damage was the detergent, which is so often toxic.
Earl Jellicoe, in another place, spoke of a previous incident in which the "Tokyo Maru" left a slick around the Scilly Isles eight miles long and half a mile wide behind her not so long ago. There was the German tanker which let out 1,700 tons of oil in the Medway, and the Greek tanker, "C.P. Goulandris" which discharged oil near Milford Haven in February last. So, we have to think not just

of the "Torrey Canyon". Therefore, one Minister should have responsibility so that there can be co-ordination in the future. I know that there is the International Governmental Maritime Consultative Committee which in 1962 gained the agreement of 17 nations that they would not discharge oil within a hundred miles of any coast. However, under another agreement, far more nations— thirty—agreed on only fifty miles as the limit. Perhaps the Government could look into this in an effort to find out if many more nations could not agree to accepting the greater distance.
I would like to ask one or two practical questions about the future. First, for how long are the military to be employed? At one time there were, 1,500 troops working on the beaches. The time for their spring training is now near, and it would be most advantageous to the military authorities if we could have an idea of the number of weeks or months during which the Minister considers it will be necessary to employ troops, particularly the logistic sections which are now fully employed in dealing with the detergent. The training of the Army may have to be delayed and the exercises may have to be put off.
I suggest that, in the future, the county councils rather than the urban district, rural district and parish councils should be responsible for action in regard to oil. It would be much more satisfactory in Cornwall and Devon if the county council took over. Many of the smaller local authorities have a very small rate income, and they cannot afford the expense. A 75 per cent. reimbursement will not be much use to some of the smaller authorities, which need 100 per cent. owing to their small rateable value.
I understand that the borough engineers have hardly been able to do any other work for the last three weeks, and the clerks of the urban district councils are overworked. We ought to decide now which authority is to be the one to take responsibility for action in disasters such as this.
There has not been any reference so far as to the question of insurance and compensation. I assume that members of the Services are fully covered against accident, burns and so on. But what about the volunteers? Are they covered


by any form of insurance? If they have an accident, do they get any compensation? I raised this matter with the right hon. Gentleman at the meeting we had in Plymouth, but there is no reference to it in the White Paper. One ought to consider the possible lasting effects of the detergent. I understand, for instance, that a condition called hyperventilation, that is, uncontrollable fast breathing, can be caused, and anyone suffering from asthma or bronchial complaints should not be enrolled as volunteers. There is the problem of dermatitis. People have been asked to put on barrier creams, but they can still develop dermatitis. If people are injured, or if they get some lasting trouble, will they have any compensation? It will not be easy to find volunteers in the future if people do not know what their position is.
The Warren Springs Laboratory has been working on such matters as the ill-effects of detergents since 1961. May we be told what the result is?
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) said about bird life. I gather that Penzance is a sort of "Clapham Junction" for migrating birds, and up to date about 40,000 have been treated. One good thing which may come out of this affair is that, for the first time, I understand, it has been possible to ring large numbers of guillemots and gannets in order to get some idea of their habits. But I believe that we shall find dead birds for a good many months to come, and, I am sorry to say, probably some dead seals as well. We are very grateful to the many people who volunteered to come down and look after the various birds and animals which suffered from the oil.
I come now to the work of the Marine Biological Association's laboratory in Plymouth. The laboratory took immediate action and started a centre for planning and co-ordinating marine biological research. The laboratory staff started work in the polluted waters as early as 24th March. During the Easter weekend they were able to start communications and collaboration with the key personnel in Devonport and arranged for one of their advisers on detergents to discuss with the chemists the nature of the products to be used in clearing the beaches.
The Laboratory sent out its research ship, the "Sarsia", which went to the Seven Stones area to take water samples, surface plankton hauls and fish trawls in the immediate vicinity of the heaviest offshore oil pollution. First reports from the six parties of expert scientists who have surveyed the effects of oil and detergents are very reassuring. There is one American amongst them, who had considerable experience in California, which was very useful. They are continuing this work over a wide area of the Cornish coast.
But that is only the first stage. The Natural Environment Research Council had already offered generous financial assistance to help the Plymouth programme. What will be the Government's contribution over and above their normal contribution? Forty-four scientists and assistants were involved in the switchover from the laboratory's normal programme, including six chemists, eight bio-chemists, and three botanists, 12 shore ecologists, and nine ship and offshore survey personnel. It is a very big programme, which will have to continue for some time. I hope that the Government will give financial assistance in this valuable work.
There are about 10,000 hotels and boarding houses in the area. I have some beautiful pictures which perhaps I can put in the Library to show how attractive the Cornish places are. We hope that the owners will not be affected, but if they are I hope that the Government will consider giving them some form of compensation. If they only let them off the Selective Employment Tax that would be a help.
The White Paper says of the future:
It will also be some time before the charges falling to local authorities and grant-aided from the Exchequer can be calculated.
I hope that when the calculations are made the Government will be very generous to all those concerned in this great effort.

11.2 p.m.

Sir John Hobson: The number of questions raised in the debate plainly indicate the immense interest in it. It is plain from the speeches of all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part that while much of the burden and anxiety of the


disaster fell upon the West Country everybody realises that it is possible for a similar disaster to occur in any other part of the country. We must consider the lessons to be learned from this event.
I very much welcome the Government's decision not to bury the question under their administrative and departmental considerations but to adopt most of the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We are very glad that the Select Committee on Science and Technology is to consider future measures against pollution in the light of recent experience.
However, I must press the Minister to answer the points put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) about the scope of the reference to the Committee. We realise that the Committee is in control of its own proceedings, but what is said in the House and what it understands to be the House's determination in referring the matter to it are bound to set a limit to the way in which it approaches it. I need not repeat the formidable points on procedure, burden and method put to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). There are many questions of a scientific and technical nature which it is eminently suitable that the Select Committee should consider. But there are many others that we have considered today which I doubt whether the Committee will be competent, within its vires, to consider. I doubt also whether it is fair to ask it to undertake the burden of such questions.
First, there is the whole question of the way the Government reached their decisions and the history of how they were taken. Secondly, how did the Government's administrative machinery work? Thirdly, there is the question of what is the present legal position in international law and, above all, what it should be. I observe that the Committee has not a single lawyer among its members. That may or may not be a recommendation, but when questions of international law arise it would be an advantage to have on the Committee at least one member with experience of law.
Then there is the question of our own municipal law and its amendment, and

while no doubt the Committee can easily undertake recommendations affecting scientific and related matters, many other questions have been raised which have little to do with science and technology but have a great deal to do with general questions of policy, liability, third party rights, control of shipping and a host of other things which are surely not within the ordinary duty of the Select Committee. All these matters should be investigated, and I hope that steps will be taken to see that it is possible for the Select Committee to undertake ail these inquiries.
These are all very important questions, and while we look forward to hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, we shall, above all, rely upon the Select Committee to conduct the most thorough investigation. We must look back for a moment at the history of the matter. I know that the Government are anxious that we should not. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) asked why we should look back with hindsight. The Government have been particularly anxious to say that no one who did not open his mouth at the time should do so now. I have never heard a more protective exercise on behalf of any Government.
The Government had the responsibility. They alone were responsible for the conduct of affairs. A country expects foresight from its Government. If that Government loses a battle, it is perfectly proper for Parliament to inquire as to why. There may or may not be good excuses.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: We did not lose it.

Sir J. Hobson: The whole of the oil escaped, yet the only objective of the Government was that it should not. They failed to destroy or deal with the oil. It may be that there are excuses, that there are reasons why anyone would have failed, but that is no reason to say that we should not look back at what happened because we did not speak at the moment it was happening.
The Government had access to the whole of the technical advice available. They had the Royal Navy, the oil companies and the owners at their disposal, and certainly right hon. and hon. Members on this side would have been thought very officious indeed if they had


been ringing up people with whom the Government were dealing at the time. I myself would like to have been in possession of the information that the Government had, but it would have been wrong for me to have attempted officiously to poke my nose into affairs being dealt with between the Government, the Royal Navy, officials, oil companies and others. The Government are making an absurd defence.
I do not want to dwell on this aspect for long, however. I have some questions to ask. I have always thought, as a result of my experience in law, politics and, at one stage, in dealing with the planning of amphibious operations, that if one wants to discover what has gone wrong one must look at the very early stages, where the key is to be found. I suggest that we should look back to the position of the Cabinet when it met on Tuesday, 21st March. Here was a ship which had been aground for three days and nights. It had been thoroughly inspected. The problem was plain. It was obvious then that there had to be a decision by the Government as to what was the best risk to take.
What happened by that Tuesday? No meeting of the Emergency Committee had taken place by then. Can the Minister say whether by that time the Scientific Committee had been assembled? I understand that the Scientific Advisory Committee had been called in, but had his Committee actually met? My information is that it did not meet until the Wednesday.
I can see that it is always reasonable, if there are no other considerations, to continue salvage operations if there is a possibility of success. That is the usual practice at sea. But there were other considerations here, and the major one was: what was the cost of failure if the vessel was not salved? We have never been told by the Government how they assessed the possibilities, because there were three main considerations that they had to take into consideration. All that we have been told is that they relied on the advice of their expert. I would not criticise them for taking that advice. They were right to consult the experts, but experts are intended to set out the prospects and ultimately the Government, or anyone running a business, or a citizen, must assess and balance the risks.
There are three factors that the Government ought to have considered. First: what was the possibility of salvage? We have never been told if the Government asked or ascertained what were the chances. We have only been told that there was a possibility—a 10 per cent., 20 per cent., or 50 per cent, possibility? Did the Government ask their adviser what was the chance of getting the vessel off? This is the question that they ought to have asked, and we have never been told that they asked it. Secondly, what were the weather prospects? If my recollection is right, on 6th June on the Normandy beaches, the weather factor was good on four days only, with two days of storm thereafter. We have been told, in the course of the debate, that the Government knew perfectly well that storms were approaching long before the Thursday when they arrived.
Did they ask what were the prospects of the weather breaking before the high tides, on which alone they could rely arrived, six or seven days later? What would have been the effect of the weather breaking before? This is what happened. The ship broke up, and the oil escaped. We have never been told that they even considered weather factors. Was the advice of the salvage expert subject only to good weather? Was not the advice that the prospects of salvage depended entirely on good weather? We want to know this.
I entirely accept what the Home Secretary says about the impossibility of pumping the oil out. It was a very difficult operation, and I accept all that he has said. The Government were right there. I agree with one of my hon. Friends who suggested that this was all the more reason why they should have urgently examined the prospects of firing the ship, there and then. Did they ask about that problem? I would not think that the salvage expert, who is the only person about whom we have heard, was the right person of whom to ask that question. Blowing off the top of the vessel and firing it inside is quite a different problem. Was the Navy expert or the oil companies asked about this? I am instructed that the people with real experience about this, the oil companies, Shell and B.P., were not consulted as to how it could be done.
The question was what were the chances—10 per cent., 20 per cent, or 50 per cent? Then there are two possibilities. There was the possibility of firing the vessel, blowing the top off the ship, or of towing her off. It was only when those two possibilities had been assessed and balanced, together with the weather factor, that one was inclined to accept firing, if it could be done.
Listening to the speeches made by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, in the House of Lords and in reading the White Paper and everything else that has been said, I cannot find any evidence that the Government ever tried to assess the risks with anyone who was expert in these three different spheres. They simply asked their salvage expert the one question, he having no responsibility for the escape of the oil and being in no other way responsible for the risks liable to arise. We have heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear Admiral Morgan-Giles), that in his view it was a perfectly simple operation, by plastic surgery as it has been called, to fire the contents of the ship as she lay on the rocks, in good weather.
An extraordinary statement which has come out of all this is the statement in paragraph 10 of the White Paper saying that the interests of the Government and of the salvors were the same. It seems to be an absolutely fundamental error in the Government's approach if that was the basis on which they approached the problem in the first instance. The interest of the salvors was to continue as long as there was any chance of getting the ship off the rocks, because they had a huge gamble and, provided there was any chance of getting if off, it was worth their while to go on. The interest of the Government was to minimise the risk of oil escaping, whatever might be the risk to the salvage operations. This was a clear conflict of interests and a clear conflict of duty and it was a fundamental error if the Government approached the problem on the basis that the interests of the salvors and of the Government were the same.
I suspect that, despite all the vigorous denials of the Prime Minister that he would ever consider private rights in any circumstances, the real position was that the Government were simply leaving it

until the ship was abandoned and they thought that they had some right to deal with it. We know that the Secretary of State for Defence himself, when asked the direct question by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) whether he would consider firing the wreck, said:
We are not in a position to be able to set fire to the ship until they "—
that is, the representatives of the company—
give their agreement that this can be done The vessel is on the high seas,…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 1056.]
On the same day, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Navy was saying precisely the same thing at Devon-port.
It may be that they changed their mind, of course, in the early days of that week, despite what they had said on the Monday, but if the Government had really changed their mind and were prepared to over-ride the interests of the salvors and the owners of the ship, how was it that in the evening of Friday, 24th March, the Under-Secretary for the Navy was telling the Press at Newlyn that when the owners had decided whether to declare her a total wreck, the experts would settle whether the tanker would be set on fire, split in two by setting charges, or have her remaining 80,000 tons of oil pumped out. It was a bit odd if at Newlyn on the Friday evening the Under-Secretary did not know that the Government had taken this vigorous line about ignoring rights, that nobody had told him. The truth is that the Government were sitting back during the whole of that week, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, deciding on the rights of the salvors and the owners of the ship.
My own view is that they might very well have had rights to deal with the matter and to take a grip on it. By Article 4(1,b) of the convention against pollution, it is the duty of any ship owners to take all reasonable precautions, after the occurrence of damage to a ship, for the purpose of preventing or minimising the escape of oil, and if it was necessary at that stage for the Government to minimise the escape of oil by destroying the ship, it is my view that, the owners having failed to undertake the duty which lay upon them under the


convention, the Government could have done it for them.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones) indicated assent.

Sir J. Hobson: I am much obliged for the Attorney-General's confirmation of that view.
Even though it might have been a trespass on property, the Government could always have said that they would pay compensation. Compensation would not, as was suggested in the House of Lords, have been based on the full value of the ship at £4 million, but only on the chance of getting it off, and if there had been only a 10 per cent. chance of getting it off, then the compensation would have been £400,000, as was plainly indicated by the Burmah Oil Company case with the Government's destruction of installations in face of the Japanese advance. The operation has already cost £2 million and on top of that there is local authority expenditure as well as damage to beaches and fisheries and injury to the tourist trade. If this was possible and feasible in the early stages, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester suggested that it was, it would have been far cheaper and far more effective to have fired the ship on the Tuesday originally.
I am sorry to place more questions on the Minister, but there are several others. The Liberian Government is to institute an inquiry. Can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government will be provided with the results of that inquiry? Will it be published in Liberia and sent to Her Majesty's Government and will Her Majesty's Government publish it and make it available to the people in this country so that its result may be known here?
Can we be told how much oil was destroyed by the bombing? On the Tuesday, the bombing was undertaken. I concede that having taken the course they did, it was the only couse left open to the Government. I think that they took the wrong course a week earlier, but, having taken that course, the only thing they could do was to try to destroy such oil as they could on the following Tuesday. How much oil was destroyed then? Was it the light fractions of the oil, and has much more sludge been left as a result of that operation?
Has France notified any claim against this country? The French papers have been saying that because of the way that the British Government handled the question of the firing they will have a claim against the United Kingdom. Since we have been notifying claims which we intend to make, it would be interesting to know whether the French Government have intimated any claims which they intend to make.
Next, I draw the attention of the House to the position of the Government during their period of office in approaching the problem of the increasing size of tankers and the risk of pollution. There were five major cases of pollution during the last two years, three as a result of collision and accident. I could list them but will not. We also know that there was an official report that oil pollution round the coasts of Great Britain in 1966 was the worst for many years.
What had happened? Perhaps I may remind the House of some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and others. On 1st March, 1966, my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) raised this very question and asked how local authorities could be helped. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government replied. All that he was prepared to say, was that his Department could co-ordinate views but did not pledge itself to any action. The Government stuck solidly to that when the matter was raised again in the debate on the Local Government Bill in July, 1966, and again, as my hon. Friend for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) has pointed out, on 6th February this year. There were three separate Parliamentary occasions, in addition to correspondence, when the matter was raised but the Government flatly refused to do anything, either to promise help to local government or to do anything else.
In view of the answer given on 6th February about there being no power to make grants, may I ask whether legislation will now be necessary retrospectively to pay the grants which have so far been promised by the Government, who only a month or two ago said that they did not have any power to make grants and did not intend to ask for any powers?
The control of routes has been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Murton), Honiton (Mr. Emery) and Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). This is not at all an easy question. There is much to be said for leaving masters a discretion in navigation, particularly when hazards of weather and tide may affect them. Perhaps, however, it would be possible for the Government to say whether, in crowded zones such as the Dover Channel, Land's End and other crowded parts of the sea, they might not impose control.
I remind the Government of something else. The real risk of collision is in narrow waters, channels and approaches to harbours. In June, 1964, the Harbours Act was passed, giving Ministers power to make control of movement orders covering approaches to harbours, but not one order has been made under that Act since the Government came to power.
There are many other questions that I should like to raise, but I promised that the Minister shall have 35 minutes in which to reply and I hope to fulfil that promise. I should, however, like to raise the question of international law. The Government have not indicated their thinking about how they should seek to amend either our municipal or international law. We should try to strengthen the International Convention Against Pollution, which does not deal with the accidental discharge of oil or with wreck or collision. There are many other lacunae, although I will not dwell on them now, but I hope that the Government will undertake to go further and try to promote an international agreement and introduce national legislation to deal with the legal problems of the discharge of noxious substances. I.M.C.O. is probably not the right body. No doubt another convention on the law of the sea will be necessary.
I wish to indicate the sort of convention which, broadly speaking, I hope the Government will consider. First, it should deal with oil, chemicals, liquid gas and other noxious substances, much on the lines of the convention dealing with nuclear discharges. Secondly, there should be absolute liability on the part of shipowners for discharge, whether on the high seas or in territorial waters, including consequential damage. Thirdly, there

should be compulsory insurance against these liabilities, with a right of recourse above a certain level—since very large sums may be involved—to international and to national funds.
Fourthly, there should be no limit of liability, or a very substantial limit, for the discharge of oil and other noxious substances. Fifthly, there should be extended prohibited zones for discharge, beyond the present limited zones of pollution. Sixthly, there should be the right to mitigate or remove, in all cases of a threatened nuisance, the source of contamination by the nation that is threatened and where serious or extensive damage is apprehended. Seventhly, there must be a great improvement in remedies and the enforcement of rights. The question of insurance and the right to an effective remedy is something that we must see is available to all those who are bound to suffer in future from what is certain to recur; namely, accidents and collisions.
We shall have to return to this topic. We rely very much on the Select Committee, but over the years there will be many occasions when we shall have to return time and again to this subject. We can only be grateful that the Government have agreed to remit the matter to the Select Committee. We can now begin, and continue, the battle to keep our coasts clear and to prevent nature from becoming befouled by man.

11.28 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I extend my sympathy to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) for not having been able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the emergency he was one of the most helpful and assiduous hon. Members in the West Country. I hope that his constituents will not hold it against him that he has not had the privilege of taking part in the debate, because he stood up for their interests with both courtesy and industry.
My hon. Friends and I expected that well deserved tributes would be paid to the Armed Services, local authorities and other public authorities for the really magnificent work they did during this very difficult period. I wish to associate Her Majesty's Government once again with what has been said in praise of everything that they did.
I do not believe that my hon. Friends anticipated that so many hon. Gentlemen opposite would say such kind things about my colleagues and myself. Indeed, almost the only touch of vinegar was introduced by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir Keith Joseph), who opened the debate many hours ago. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was getting on to rather dangerous ground when he put his four points about the Select Committee on Science and Technology because, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) pointed out, it is for the Select Committee itself to decide how it conducts its proceedings within its terms of reference.
The Committee's terms of reference were laid down by this House on 14th December, 1966. If the Committee wants to reinforce its staff or wishes its membership to be reinforced, the Government will certainly be prepared to do everything possible to help, because we realise the magnitude of the task the Committee is undertaking, and we wish to do everything possible to be of assistance. But it is for the Committee to decide whether it wants to summon witnesses, call for papers or sit in public. It would be wrong for us to indicate how we think it should arrange that side of its activities.
However, it would be wrong if we were to give the impression that, in the view of the Government, it would be part of the reference to the Committee which the House is making today for it to go into the state of the law and consider subjects like flags of convenience. Those do not seem to us to be subjects which come naturally within the scope of a Select Committee on Science and Technology. I think that I should certainly disabuse the House of any idea that we see the work of the Select Committee as being an inquest on what has taken place in the past. The wording of the Motion is that we should
refer to the Select Committee … the question of future measures against the pollution of our shores in the light of the experience gained from the wreck of the 'Torrey Canyon'.
It is not an occasion, I hope, when the Select Committee will ask why something

was done on Wednesday instead of on Tuesday, or on Thursday instead of on Friday. If the House wants to hold an inquest, it can hold an inquest today. If the Opposition are dissatisfied with the account that we have given of our stewardship during the period, they can force the Motion to a Division and express disagreement with the action that the Government have taken.

Sir K. Joseph: Does the Minister agree that it is he now who is trying to lay down what the Committee shall or shall not do? Does the Minister agree that if the Committee wishes to draw lessons for the future from the past, as is implied in the Motion, it will be free to ask any question it wishes about the conduct of the Government or the information available to the Government during the whole of this episode?

Mr. Greenwood: Certainly, if they are relevant to the issue. What I was pointing out was that the Motion, which I understand the Opposition are going to ask us to accept tonight, refers to
future measures against the pollution of our shores in the light of experience.…
I was suggesting that in the terms of the Motion the Select Committee might find it better to concentrate upon the future steps which can be taken rather than conduct an inquest into what has already taken place, which I think we have had in the course of the debate today.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), complained that there was a certain lack of speed on the part of Her Majesty's Government. On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who was much closer than the right hon. Member to the operation, complimented us on the speed at which we had worked and on what he called on an earlier occasion the dynamic action which had been taken.
When the right hon. Gentleman complained of lack of activity it is only right to point out that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy flew down to Plymouth on Sunday, 19th March and had discussions with the Service Chiefs and the Principal Regional Officer of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and


on the following day he had a meeting with the Cornish maritime authorities. On the same day our own senior engineer inspectors from the Ministry arrived in Plymouth, and on the Tuesday the Ministry of Housing and Local Government asked the Cornish authorities for details of manpower available, resources and equipment, and a priority list of beaches. That was the beginning of a series of meetings with the local authorities when they were kept fully in the picture and when written information was given to them.
The hon. Member for Honiton was once again critical of the speed of action in the case of Devon. He should know that it was on Wednesday, 22nd March, that arrangements were put in hand for collecting from the Devon authorities information about equipment and manpower. On Saturday, 25th March, officials of my own Ministry held preliminary meetings with the Devon maritime authorities. On Sunday, 26th March, the information asked for was collected. On the Monday there was a demonstration of equipment for the Devon local authorities. On Tuesday, 28th March, I met the Clerk of the Devon County Council, and on Wednesday I met the elected representatives and officers of the Devon maritime authorities.
It is very difficult to suggest that any Ministers or Ministries could have worked more quickly than we did in respect both of Devon and of Cornwall, giving Cornwall priority because Cornwall was and still is the only county affected by oil pollution. We also made provision for finance. By the Sunday night £500,000 had been promised to deal with the emergency. We gave the local authorities an undertaking that we would pay a grant of 75 per cent. of the necessary costs which they incurred and that if they were still left with something more than a 2d. rate we would give them an additional grant.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington asked what power we had to make this financial contribution. The answer to that is that we have no statutory power. We took emergency action which I think the House will thing was right. We shall in due course have to ask for a Supplementary Estimate, and we shall

have to ask the House to approve the Supplementary Estimate and its inclusion in an Appropriation Bill.
When the oil started coming ashore it became clear that this was a combined operation and that civil decisions were having to be taken by a Navy Minister and by commanding officers whom it was unfair to ask to take decisions of this kind. That was when my Ministry became closely involved, working under the committee of the Cabinet presided over by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The job of my colleagues and myself was to take decisions on the spot without trespassing on the proper functions of the local authorities.
We had our headquarters at Plymouth where we had the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, our administrators and our specialists, including scientists, working closely with the committee presided over by Sir Solly Zuckerman, and we had our engineers in Plymouth, Truro and Exeter. At the two forward posts in Truro and Exeter we had administrative, engineering and liaison officers whose job it was to keep in close contact with the county and county district councils and the other public services and the military commanders. Their main task was to co-ordinate the operations, to decide priorities, and to transmit the decisions to the Services to carry them out.
Another of the important tasks which they had—I think this was most important —was to maintain morale in extremely difficult circumstances. One of the tasks which we set ourselves was to counter alarmism. We therefore arranged for the supplying of reliable information about the state of beaches and the progress of the operations, because exaggerated reports at that time could have produced either defeatism on the one hand or over-confidence on the other. I would like to thank hon. Members from the West Country for the help which they gave in preserving the long-term interests of the people of Devon and of Cornwall.
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), who referred to the question of further publicity for the area, that the Government have agreed to make an additional grant to the Tourist Board in order to publicise the attractions of the West Country.
In the event I think our confidence was justified, and the combination of offshore and onshore activity, which resulted from cool deliberation and calm assessment, averted what could have been a much graver disaster. The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) spoke about an error of judgment on our part and said we had been culpably wrong. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, on the the other hand, said we were right to do what we did. I do not think that anybody who bore the responsibility which a few of us did over the Easter weekend could fail to look back to review the decisions. We have asked ourselves whether we were right. I have done so. My right hon. Friend has done so. Certainly there is no doubt in our minds that the action which we took was right.
Hon. Gentlemen have questioned the use of the phrase that we were
not inhibited by financial or legal considerations".
I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton that that does not mean that we contemplated action which would have been a breach of international law. If we had taken action against the "Torrey Canyon" before we did it would have been justifiable under international law. But what we mean by that statement, that we were not inhibited by financial or legal considerations, is that it was not considerations of law or finance which stopped us taking action which we believed to be necessary.
We did not set fire to or bomb the ship for one quite simple reason, and that was that the only certain way to minimise the pollution was to tow the ship and what remained of its cargo as far away as possible. There was no conflict of interest between the salvors and the Government so long as the possibility of salvage remained, and so long as there was any hope of doing so the interests of the Government and the salvors coincided. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that the Government certainly did not delay out of any consideration for the salvage company.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the salvors really wanted to tow the ship

out into the middle of the Atlantic, because I just do not believe it?

Mr. Greenwood: It means that the salvors were quite satisfied that they would be able to raise the ship from the rocks on which it was at that stage impaled. The question of what the salvors were going to do afterwards does not arise. So long as there was a possibility of salvage the interests of the salvors and the Government coincided. Our job was not to take action the success of which could not have been guaranteed and which might well have produced much worse pollution of the sea than was the case at that stage.

Sir J. Hobson: Sir J. Hobson rose—

Mr. Greenwood: No, I cannot give way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already run into my time. I have given way, and am prepared to give way to other hon. Members when I have had an opportunity of answering some of the questions that have been put to me.
The risks of the action which could have been taken in respect of the "Torrey Canyon", whether in respect of firing or pumping or bombing, were very great, as I think the hon. Member for St. Ives appreciated.
The hon. Member for Bodmin asked me for the name of the tanker, to which reference has been made, which burnt in the Persian Gulf in August, 1966. It was the "British Crown". It caught fire by accident. At the end of two months the fire had destroyed only a portion of the cargo, and considerable pollution of the shore resulted from the fire.
As I was saying, the risks of the action were very great indeed. The Chairman of the West Penwith Rural District Council, a most admirable public representative, told me of a Cornish proverb which says that everybody knows what to do with a kicking horse except the chap who is in charge of it, and there has been a good deal of that in what some hon. Members have been saying today. But I am sure that we were wise to rely upon the skill of the Royal Navy and what is probably the best salvage company in Europe rather than the advice of those further from the operation. It is not only very easy to give advice retrospectively, as hon. Gentlemen have admitted, but it is also very easy to give


advice from a distance, particularly if one does not have to carry it out.
We had to act knowing the risks to life. Already the Dutch captain of the tug had been killed. In reply to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) and others, it is not known what the cause of his death was. It could have been because of petroleum vapour or because of compressed air or because of a combination of the two, but there is certainly no precise knowledge of the cause of his death. But we had to act knowing the risks to life, and knowing the threat to the beaches in the conditions which then obtained. Nobody who saw the "Torrey Canyon" a few hours before it broke up will ever forget the force of the storms which were beating against it at that time.
Just as I am certain that our overall policy was right, so I am certain that nobody could have done more than the Services or the public authorities. The two county councils were extremely efficient and conscientious; they, with the district councils under them, did a fine job. I endorse particularly what the hon. Lady said about the police, the fire services from all over the country, and river authorities and civil defence. I should add that the chairmen of both county councils expressed to me their appreciation of what the Government had done to help.
Apart from destroying the oil in the ship—and it is estimated that about 40,000 tons was destroyed when the ship was set on fire—

Sir K. Joseph: Is the right hon. Gentleman answering the question put to him by saying that all the oil in the ship was destroyed and not just the top particles? Was the sludge left? I am trying to ask a technical question without full knowledge. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give me a layman's answer. Is there a lot of sludge left in the ship?

Mr. Greenwood: We believe that that is not the case, and that there was a pretty good cleaning away of the oil in the vessel. It has not been possible to make a full inspection yet, but that is the view of those who have made preliminary inspections of what is left.
The three steps we had to take when oil was coming ashore were, first, to use detergents at sea. The hon. Member for Honiton, asked whether we had approved lists, and whether they had been appraised by scientists. We did not have approved lists. Six different kinds of detergent were used, and all were tested either before the operation or in the early stages of the operation. They were tested by the naval experts and other scientists we had available in Plymouth. On the whole, the effect of spraying at sea was satisfactory. Certainly, combined with the natural effects of wind and water, it helped to mitigate the effect of the oil. The effect of spraying on the sea was to mitigate the pollution of the beaches themselves.
We had to be very careful not to overdo the spraying at sea, especially in view of certain alarmist articles which had been written, one of which, because of a miscalculation, exaggerated by a factor of nearly 2,000 times the concentration of detergent in the sea. I am sorry that the newspaper concerned has not yet retracted, and has merely complimented us upon having gone through our calculations once again.
The best scientific advice we had at the beginning was that the effect on marine life was not likely to be great, and subsequent surveys have confirmed that impression. Nevertheless, we took great care to discontinue spraying by naval vessels as soon as the situation justified it. Secondly, we had to use detergents on the beaches. With a few exceptions this has been remarkably successful. I confess, however, that in the case of some beaches there is a tendency for the oil to sink in. We have not yet got on top of that problem. We have been carrying out experiments in some areas, but we do not yet know the final answer and a good deal more research will be necessary. Rather longer-term treatment is needed than we had originally hoped. On Friday I sent out a circular to local authorities warning them against the overuse of detergents in these circumstances.
The third precaution that we had to take was in respect of booms. There we were in some difficulty. We did not want to discourage local authorities who wanted to go ahead, but booms raise a number of problems. Most of the


booms available had very little freeboard. Length is also a factor of considerable importance. Generally speaking, booms are not suitable where there is a tide of more than 3½knots at the outside, and the optimum speed of the tide is perhaps 2½ knots. There was no certainty as to the best type of protective materials to use on the booms.
The hon. Member for Poole raised the case of the boom in Poole Harbour. That broke away because of the speed of the tide and also because of the length of boom required. In Falmouth the boom originally intended for the "Torrey Canyon" broke from its moorings. I should like to make the position clear, because the White Paper may unwittingly have done an injustice in its reference to the "Torrey Canyon" boom, giving the impression that the plastic sections themselves did not stand up to the conditions which existed. In fact, what happened was that the couplings between the plastic sections came apart. We have no complaint against the firm —Aeropreen—which was responsible for producing the boom and whose staff worked over the Easter weekend in order to get the boom made and placed in position. If, therefore, I can clear up any misunderstanding which might have been caused, I am only too delighted to do so.
But because of the various difficulties that arose with booms, we set up a group of experts at Plymouth which, with the Royal Navy at Bath, could advise on the feasibility of using booms. In the outcome, all areas of Cornwall which needed booms received them, although only three had to stand up to oil pollution. All places in Devonshire which wanted booms could have had them at 36 hours' notice. So, we did all that we could practicably do to help the local authorities, not only with detergents—and about a million gallons have been used—but also with the provision of booms, with Army, Navy, and other personnel, and so on.
We have done all that could be done, but, of course, some oil pollution will continue. There is only a very small amount at sea now, but there are some areas of oil in the rocky inlets. Some areas may get pollution from neighbouring coves or bays, and I suppose that nobody can say

how long that will continue; but we are on top of the problem and local authorities have achieved a remarkable degree of success.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) referred to the further use of Service manpower, as well as the testing of various types of detergent. These are matters under discussion and, so far as the Services are concerned, we should hope to solve the problem within the next few days. We naturally appreciate the difficulties of the Services, but are also aware of the difficulties facing local authorities.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, there will be further hazards of this kind. It is a disturbing thought that a tanker twice the size of the "Torrey Canyon" is due in Bantry Bay in a few days' time, and there are other hazards to which he referred. We are not forgetting any of them; nuclear-powered ships, and cargoes about which he knows much more than I do.
So far as the legal position is concerned, we are not absolutely clear at the moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the last Convention on oil pollution and this was signed at the time of the previous Administration. I seek to make no political point at all about that, but the Convention is not wholly adequate now and perhaps the time has come for international discussions with a view to securing a change. The Government have, therefore, started talks through the Foreign Office, and have a formal observer at the informal Liberian inquiry which is going on.

Sir J. Hobson: Could I ask if we shall have a report of the Liberian inquiry?

Mr. Greenwood: I cannot answer that at the moment. It has so far been an informal inquiry. We are pressing for a more formal meeting which would be of the type more likely to produce the sort of report I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.
So far as our own domestic law is concerned, hon. Members will recall the statements of the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, and others of my right hon. Friends, and I do not think that I could usefully add tonight to what they have already said.
I conclude by saying that we have learned a great deal—

Sir K. Joseph: Before the right hon. Gentleman ends his 30-minute catalogue, will he pay tribute to the one factor which has saved the West Country, namely, the unusual but very welcome behaviour of the prevailing wind?

Mr. Greenwood: That is one of the most trivial interventions I have ever heard from either Front Bench in 21 years in the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will note that his hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has a Question down on Wednesday to the Secretary of State for Defence, to ask to what reasons he ascribes the recent eight-week period of westerly winds over this country, one of the longest periods in recorded meteorological history.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph rose—

Mr. Greenwood: The right hon. Gentleman has wasted enough of the time of the House already in seeking to make political capital out of what might have been a national disaster.
We have learned a great deal from this experience. We now know the kind of administrative machinery which is required. We have still to decide in what parts of the country it shall be sited. There is the need for combining speed and economy, and we have also to work out for how long the immediate steps will be necessary.
We now know much more than we did about what technical measures are effective. Research and planning has to continue. We are having discussions with the oil interests and through the working party which we have with the Institute of Petroleum about oil pollution of beaches and about the removal of oil pollution at sea. The information which we obtain will be made generally available, and France will certainly be able to benefit from it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be glad to know that we have had a letter from the Secretary of State for Transportation in the French Government thanking us for the great help which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of

State for the Navy was able to give to the French in this emergency. Naturally, we shall make available to the Select Committee on Science and Technology the information which comes to us.
On this occasion, we have overcome adversity, partly through Government initiative, but also through the loyalty and tenacity of the Services and through the grit and determination of the people of the West Country. We are fortunate to have emerged as successfully as we have. I ask the House to endorse the While Paper statement on what has been achieved and the course of action proposed, that is, that the Select Committee be invited to consider future policy in the light of our experience.

Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question, a serious question which was put by four hon. Members on this side, about shipping off our shores and the need to do something without waiting for an international order? Do the Government intend to do something about shipping in congested lanes?

Mr. Greenwood: We are looking into that, as has been made abundantly clear in several Ministerial statements. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have grasped it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the White Paper on the "Torrey Canyon" (Command Paper No. 3246), endorses the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government and resolves to refer to the Select Committee on Science and Technology the question of future measures against the pollution of our shores in the light of the experience gained from the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon".

TRADE UNION AND TRADE DISPUTES

Deferred proceeding resumed.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)), put forthwith the Question,
That leave be given to brine; in a bill to repeal the Trade Disputes Act 1965; to amend the law concerning trade unions, and to confer better protection against threats and other abuses in the course of trade disputes.

Question negatived.

FISHING INDUSTRY (NORTH-WEST SUTHERLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

12 m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome this opportunity to raise the question of the development of fishing in North-West Sutherland. In the North-West Highlands the best hope for the under-pinning of the economy and stabilisation of its population lies in the development and full utilisation of the indigenous natural resources of land and sea.
For too long these parts have been the playground of absentee proprietors who, with perhaps one honourable exception, contribute little more to the local economy than a grocer's order to fill the gap until a hamper arrives from Harrods or Fortnum and Mason. In North-West Sutherland the proprietors are few, but their land-holdings are great, topping 100,000 acres apiece, while crofters struggle with unrewarding soil to raise on the little that is left to them the wherewithal of a living. It is an affront to our society that these few men are permitted to prevent the regeneration of the North-West Highlands.
But the sea is open and the fishing good—just how good is revealed in the Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics, which record for the district of Ullapool the most remarkable increase since the early 1950s in value and landings. This fishery district is comprised, to all intents and purposes, of the ports of Lochinver and Kinlochbervie. It is revealed in the last available Scottish Fisheries Report that, of all the fishery districts in Scotland, Aberdeen alone surpassed that district in importance. In 1965, the most recent year for which official figures are available, the catches at Lochinver had risen to £397,812 in value, while at Kinlochbervie they reached £444,186. From figures locally available it appears that 1966 surpassed even 1965. At these two ports, however, the landing and marketing facilities are completely inadequate, and I seek to draw attention tonight to the urgent need to improve them, particularly in the light of the most helpful

report of the Estimates Committee on Assistance to to the Fishing Industry.
A comparison of the figures, showing the financial assistance offered by Governments for the improvement of fishing harbours in Scotland reveals startling discrepancies. For example, the port of Eyemouth, included in a fishery district with total landings in 1965 worth £450,160, received £46,100 in 1965 and before 1965 the sum of £347,800. The port of Kinlochbervie, on the other hand, with landings in 1965 almost equal to those of the whole fishery district of Eyemouth, received no assistance in that year, and pre-1965 received a mere £51,718. In view of Kinlochbervie's urgent needs, one may reasonably ask what criteria are and should be employed by the Government in determining how financial assistance is to be allocated.
The competitive ability of the Highland fishing industry is remarkable. In the past, save in the case of the Outer Isles Fisheries Training Scheme, no special consideration has been given to the development of fishing in the crofting counties. The White Fish Authority has allocated its grant and loan funds for the construction and improvement of boats on exactly the same criteria to Highland boats as to those in the rest of the country, the criteria being likely return on investment and the credit-worthiness of the applicant.
Whereas in 1965 the seven crofting counties had about 20 per cent. of all the full-time fishermen in Scotland and about 80 per cent, of all the part-time fishermen, and accounted for about 24 per cent, by value of the total landings in Scotland, between 1953 and 1966 the grants and loan assistance offered by the White Fish Authority for construction and improvement of boats in the Highlands amounted to a mere 12 per cent, of the total for Scotland. In other words, the Highlands which, since 1963, have actually been increasing their share of the total Scottish landings, have been operating at a distinct financial advantage compared with the rest of Scotland. It is time that this imbalance was redressed and not merely because of so-called social reasons but because the Highlands inshore fleet is in proximity to some of the best fishing banks and is fully competitive with the inshore fleets based elsewhere. But I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention particularly to the


Government's policy with regard to assistance for harbour development.
The growth potential of the port of Lochinver is unchallenged. While it must be acknowledged at once that the remarkable expansion of production at Lochinver and Kinlochbervie has been brought about largely by fishermen living on the east coast outside the crofting area, at Lochinver there is the nucleus of a locally-owned fleet. Although the landings have not yet caught up with those at Kinlochbervie, there has been a steady increase in weight and value.
The hard-standing area at Culag Pier has long been totally inadequate to meet the actual needs of fishermen using the port and since the partial collapse of the pier this year the difficulties have been acute. I am pleased that the Government have at least approved in principle a 75 per cent. grant towards the cost of the extension of the Culag Pier. But I must urge on my hon. Friend the need to complete the approval of this scheme at once so that the repairs and extensions can be started this spring without the loss of another summer's building season.
There is also the urgent need for the provision of a covered market to which I would draw my hon. Friend's attention. Speaking of Lochinver and Kinlochbervie, the Estimates Committee rightly pointed out, in paragraph 59 of its Report, that fishery considerations could not be divorced from the general development of social amenities. It was also evident, the Committee stated:
… that in Sutherland these other services might need development to enable the fishing industry to become firmly established and play its full part in the local economy.
Prime among the social amenities must be the provision of a fully comprehensive secondary education within at least striking distance of the west coast ports. Given these circumstances, Lochinver is a port with a very bright future. There is no reason why the tremendous fishing of the North Minch should not help to provide an anchor for the population of the North-West.
At Kinlochbervie also, the constantly increasing landings offer a challenge and an opportunity to the Government to reverse the trend of depopulation by making provisions along the lines suggested by the Estimates Committee and

by tackling the immediate problems of improving the landing facilities. I regret that hitherto a remarkable reluctance has been shown by both this Government and their predecessors to recognise the needs of this fleet at Kinlochbervie.
There is before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland at the moment a request from the Sutherland County Council for approval and assistance towards the cost of carrying out the Council's proposals to deepen the entrance channel to Loch Bervie to a depth of 12 feet, at mean low water. I am aware of some of the objections and counter-arguments against this scheme. Most of these objections appear to me to be based upon faulty assumptions or ignorance of present local conditions.
But let me first state the case before dealing with the objections to it. A new jetty was constructed at Loch Bervie in 1961 at a cost of £56,000, of which £42,000 was met by the Exchequer. At that time, it was intended to provide berthing accommodation for boats within the shelter of Loch Bervie. The landings and sales for the most part took place at Loch Clash, where there was neither adequate berthing nor shelter.
Shortly thereafter, a grant of 75 per cent, of £13,000 was made for the cost of deepening the entrance to Loch Bervie to a depth of seven feet. Whether or not this depth was achieved, and this is a matter of some doubt, there is no doubt that the depth was and is insufficient to allow the boats using Loch Bervie to move freely in and out and delays of up to two hours are frequent.
In the memorandum submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State to the Estimates Committee, it was stated on page 293 that the County Council's project
… would be necessary only to give access to Loch Bervie for larger boats of up to 70 feet which at present use Lochinver.
This is a most misleading statement. I have a list of all the boats which fish out of Loch Bervie at the moment and while the average length of the boats is actually 54 ft, no less than 18 of them are over 60 ft. Thus the case does not depend upon the desirability or otherwise of attracting longer boats to Kinlochbervie but upon providing adequate facilities for those which at present do use the port.
The second point taken against the scheme appears to be that Loch Bervie is for berthing and Loch Clash the area for landing of fish and loading of goods. This is certainly no longer the true position for about 50 per cent. of the landings are made at Loch Bervie and 50 per cent. at Loch Clash. A third point is that the harbour at Loch Bervie is in the wrong place anyway, and it should be at the head of Lochincherd, which would avoid the necessity of carrying the fish by lorry along a difficult road, the B.810 from Kinlochbervie to Rhiconich. But there is a great difference between driving a lorry at night, however bad the weather, and conning a £20,000 boat in bad weather down a very enclosed and not entirely sheltered sea loch.
I have been in touch with the Highland Development Board about this question. Mr. Prophet Smith, a member of the Board, has already indicated by letter to the Sutherland County Council that the Board favours the deepening of the entrance to Loch Bervie to allow boats to pass freely at any state of the tide. I would urge my hon. Friend likewise to give serious consideration and approval to this modest proposal. It has been estimated by the consultant engineers to the County Council to cost not more than £34,000.
It is true that consideration is being given to the possible expansion of the local fleet at Kinlochbervie, and Sutherland Council Council has recently given planning permission to Messrs. Pulford (Scotland) Ltd., to proceed with developments totalling £63,000. It is as well to note that Pulford's at present employ 14 people from the Kinlochbervie area directly in the fishing industry, and in addition 38 are employed in ancillary capacities to the industry.
This is a major and increasingly important source of local employment in an area of high unemployment. These proposals for expansion can possibly wait upon the conclusions of the Highland Development Board's survey at the end of the year. The proposal for the deepening of Loch Bervie is to be judged a present and pressing necessity, and I commend it to the Government.
One point relates to the need to establish fish processing facilities in the area. The prime need for processing is a fairly

constant supply of fish. This is available in North-West Sutherland. One of the rather remarkable features of the Highland's fishing industry is that, whereas in Scotland as a whole there are two full-time ancillary workers to every full-time fisherman, in the crofting counties, the ratio is only about one to one. This reflects the extent to which Highland fishermen use processing facilities, goods and services from outside the crofting area.
A clear object of any Highland development policy must be to provide these facilities on the spot, for not only will it enhance the value of the produce, and reduce the transportation costs, but it will offer considerably increased employment opportunities in the area.
The Government's harbours policy needs to be revised in the light of the Estimates Committee's report. That policy was summed up in the memorandum to which I have referred. Page 293 states:
The Department's policy has been to secure fuller rationalisation by confining assistance for major developments to about 25 harbours and thus to make the most effective use of the funds available and assist the de velopment of better shore facilities. Assistance is, however, also given for essential works required to maintain other harbours where the local community is wholly dependent on fishing.
Kinlochbervie, a port which last year yielded £9,000 in harbour dues alone, appears to have been excluded by the Government so far from major development. Because the local community is not wholly dependent on fishing, even essential works such as the harbour deepening have been neglected. The Estimates Committee, however, rightly recommended that the administration of grants for the development and repair of harbours in Scotland should be:
… directed at providing for the reasonable needs of the actual or prospective fishing operations in the area.
I was impressed by the evidence of the Committee given by Mr. A. Aglen, the Fisheries Secretary for Scotland. He said:
These Highland fishermen behave like other fishermen; even though based at Stornoway they land on the mainland if that is the best way of getting it marketed. They will land it at Stornoway if there is an outlet for it, but the outlet at Stornoway is distinctly limited.


Similarly fishermen from Buckie, reaping the harvest of the North Minch, will land at Lochinver and Kinlochbervie, where there are marketing outlets.
They will land at both ports because, among other reasons, the Rhu Stoer tends to divide the banks which they fish. There is not, and cannot be, an arbitrary allocation of ports according to the length of the boats, however neat that solution might appear to be. The growth of the fishing industry in North-west Sutherland is a heartening prospect. As I understand the Government's policy, it is to encourage the development of fishing at certain selective points.
I call upon the Government, and my hon. Friend in particular, with his well-known understanding of and sympathy for the problems of the fishing industry, to recognise the needs and potentiality of Lochinver and Kinlochbervie, and to do all in their power to assist their development.

12.15 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has been in the House for only a year, but in that short time he has forcefully brought the needs of his constituency and of the Highlands very much to the fore in debates in the House. I have particular reason for thinking this, because he is the Member of Parliament for the area of my birth, as he knows, and it is a good deal of satisfaction to me sitting on the Front Bench to know that the area of my birth is in the competent hands of my hon. Friend.
He raised a very large number of issues tonight and posed a number of very deep questions. He will not expect me to deal with all of them. However, we shall be paying attention to some aspects on which I shall not venture tonight. Comparisons of actual figures are sometimes difficult. My hon. Friend referred to the situation in Eyemouth and made a striking statistical comparison with some of the expenditure on areas in the Highlands. It is, of course, true that major assistance was given to Eye-mouth. That was because a very large scheme was necessary there to provide a satisfactory harbour, on which the substantial local fishing fleet depended, with no suitable alternative nearby.
But, having said that, we recognise the extent of the problem which my hon. Friend mentioned. I should have thought that the whole policy of the Government and especially the establishment of the Highlands and Islands Development Board—and I know that my hon. Friend understands this very well—shows the seriousness with which we take this whole area and its needs.
My hon. Friend need make no apology for raising this subject tonight. The area of which he has spoken is scantily populated and remote—possibly as remote as one can get in the United Kingdom—but perhaps for that very reason it is all the more important that its needs should be kept before our attention, and certainly my hon. Friend has done that over the past year. If it cannot be claimed as one of the main fishing areas in Scotland, none the less it plays a significant part in the well-being of the fishing industry. More than this, however, to a considerable extent its own well-being is bound up with that of fishing and we are concerned to ensure that the local people are able to derive full advantage from the resources of the sea in their own vicinity.
I agree at once that there is ample scope to develop local interest and involvement in fishing, and I took note of the statistics which my hon. Friend produced to demonstrate this, not only in the area which he mentioned, but on the whole of the north-west coast. One of the purposes of the Highlands and Islands Board's setting up of its fishery development scheme is precisely to take care of areas such as this.
For the most part, the activity here is on a small scale, with a few men engaging, often seasonally or part time, in fishing for white fish or shellfish in relatively small boats and often combining this with crofting. The returns which we have show that in 1966 along the whole north and west coasts of Sutherland no more than 129 local men and 58 boats, of which only eight were more than 40 feet in length, were employed in the industry, and not all of them full time. That, as my hon. Friend said, is not the whole picture, however.
It is a very different picture if one considers landings, largely brought about by men from the east coast, for total landings of white fish in 1966 amounted


to 314,983 cwts., valued at £1,032,455. These landings were made at Kinlochbervie—159,791 cwts.—and Lochinver—155,192 cwts.—by the fleet of boats which belong to Moray Firth ports, but which make a practice of fishing on the west coast and landing there, the crews returning home each weekend. To the extent that these are not local vessels and crews, the figure of overall landings gives a false impression of the local interest in the fishing activity in the area, but it serves to show how rich are the natural resources which could be tapped if the truly local fishing activity could be expanded.
This is not to say that development is easy or that it would be a simple task to change the local pattern. The facts of geography must be faced, and fishermen cannot operate and land their catches where there is no market for them. Inevitably where a long coastline and scattered population are involved, this implies a measure of centralisation at places where harbour facilities and marketing arrangements are to be found. It means also that it is all the more important to have available facilities of this kind, and a great deal of thought and care has been given to the question of harbour facilities, and my hon. Friend quoted some examples.
We would like, therefore, to say where we stand. The major issue in regard to harbours is that there are two in the area, Kinlochbervie and Lochinver, not far distant from one another and, in a sense, competing with one another for assistance towards major and costly developments. Both are the responsibility of the County Council, which in 1965 applied for help towards proposals for improving both, at substantial cost.
For Culag Pier, Lochinver, the Council sought to increase threefold the length of quay for berthing and landing fish and the working area or deck space, together with some subsidiary works, all at a cost of £76,000. At Kinlochbervie a new jetty had been completed in 1961 at a cost of £56,000, of which, incidentally, the Exchequer met £42,000. This was mainly to provide for the berthing of vessels which landed at the nearby Loch Clash pier, where there is neither adequate berthing nor shelter, and the entrance channel had subsequently been deepened

to 7 ft—I notice the caveat made by my hon. Friend—at a cost of £13,000, of which about £10,000 was paid by grant.
Here the County Council proposed to carry out further deepening of the entrance channel to 12ft., at an estimated cost of £34,000, to enable larger vessels to enter at all times. It seemed to us that it would be difficult to justify spending Exchequer funds on simultaneous major developments at two landing places in the same general area to enable them to serve the same size and type of fishing vessel. Accordingly, we suggested that the County Council should itself decide which harbour should receive priority for assistance. This the County Council did, and it chose to give priority to Culag, Pier, Lochinver. This seemed right to us, and in July, 1966, the Council was told that the scheme would qualify for a 75 per cent. grant on the estimated cost of £76,000.
Since then, the County Council has been arranging for the preparation of the necessary Provisional Order for the works. Recently, however, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, part of the east quay wall collapsed. As repair of this was urgent we have offered, within the approved scheme, 75 per cent. grant towards its cost in advance of the main extension. As my hon. Friend knows, the County Council has not decided to take up this offer. It has decided to leave over the work until the reconstruction and extension of the pier as a whole can be undertaken.
My hon. Friend referred to the delay which has occurred concerning the Provisional Order. It is a Provisional Order under the provisions of the General Pier and Harbour Act 1861, as applied by Sections 4 and 5 of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act 1937, to give the Council the necessary powers to undertake the works. It is being prepared by the Council's agents and is at the drafting stage. Little progress can be made with the main extension until the Order is made and confirmed. This is one of the reasons for the difficulties. Objections may be entered. Time will have to be taken. It is not only a matter for the Government; it is a twofold process. It is not necessarily time-wasting, but it certainly takes time.
I would like to emphasise again that Lochinver was the choice of the County


Council. I do not complain, therefore, that having been offered grant to meet its first priority—Lochinver—the Council then applied again to deepen the Lochbervie entrance. This is where we part company with the Council. Bearing in mind that the present entrance channel is normally adequate for the smaller vessels which use Kinlochbervie to land their catches—again, I have noted the points made by my hon. Friend—and that the purpose of the jetty there was largely to provide berthing space, it does not seem to us that the full expenditure involved in deepening the channel to 12 ft. would be justified.

Mr. Maclennan: Does my hon. Friend recognise that whatever the original intentions were, the jetty at Loch Bervie is now being used for marketing and icing, chandling and all the other facilities of a normal fishing port?

Mr. Buchan: I am aware of that. Indeed, there was yet another development recently, which my hon. Friend has also mentioned, at Loch Bervie. I am aware of these points.
It is true that easy access is necessary when landing and marketing the catch, but there is not the same urgency when the approach is simply for the purpose of berthing and tying up, either for the night or for the weekend, as frequently happens in the area. Moreover, it seems all too likely that if an appreciable number of the larger boats which at present land their catches at Lochinver were to decide to use Loch Bervie, congestion would result in this relatively small loch and there would be further pressure to deepen parts of the loch itself to create more space and to provide more landing space, which would mean either duplicating or stultifying, the extensions planned for Lochinver.
In these circumstances, we have not found it possible to agree to deepen the channel to 12 ft. But we accept that there may be a case fur making the approach somewhat easier and we have told the County Council that we are prepared to examine a modified scheme for deepening the channel to 10 ft. at mean low water spring tides. This may cost about £20,000. We have suggested that if it wishes to proceed on this basis, it should submit proposals and estimates, and we are awaiting these.
I know that this does not give my hon. Friend, the fishermen or the County Council the best of both worlds. But it does seem a sensible compromise. We accept the Council's own priorities and we are satisfied that the improvements at Lochinver are essential, although we do not think it reasonable to seek to duplicate them unnecessarily nearby.
Neither port has a fleet of its own—almost all the vessels involved are "stranger" east coast boats—and although fishing in the area has been good in the last few years, it is still subject to natural fluctuations, and if it deteriorated the fleets operating from these harbours would have no local ties to keep them there.
Again, although there is activity at both places, they can, between them, provide for the vessels involved and will be much better able to do so once the approved extensions and improvements at Lochinver are available. We know of no reason to suppose that the fleets are likely to increase substantially in numbers to an extent which would make it necessary to provide yet more pier and landing space.
In other words, we do not agree that major extensions are needed at both harbours or that we could justify spending public money to provide them. It is true that the County Council has not formulated and approached us with any proposals for extra pier development at Kinlochbervie. The Council's approach has been confined to the question of deepening the entrance. But this would be a possible development from a situation in which the larger boats at present landing at Lochinver were enabled to land at Kinlochbervie. This is indeed the kind of situation which the Estimates Sub-Committee which visited both places, described in its Sixth Report, when it stated:
As a result of what the Sub-Committee saw, it is clear that a measure of assistance to achieve a limited objective can lead to a request for more help to achieve a more ambitious project".
This, of course, is not wrong in itself. My point is that, in this instance, the more ambitious project is probably unnecessary.
My hon. Friend referred to Pulford's and the fact that planning permission


had been given to them. I cannot comment on this matter in detail now. It is a matter that, from the point of view of the long-term future, we will have to watch, particularly in respect of the building of houses for east coast fishermen who desire to settle their families there.
It must be realised that the funds available for harbour works are not unlimited and must serve the whole of the Scottish coasts. It is worth recording that since 1955 offers of assistance made for Lochinver and Kinlochbervie, including the pier at Loch Clash, or in prospect, now total more than £150,000.
To sum up, it seems that the argument is whether both should be developed. We have deepened, and are considering further deepening at Loch Bervie. In this

situation, both could, I think, be complementary. There is no sign yet of larger numbers of additional boats making the development necessary, and, therefore, we must consider whether we are content with the Loch Bervie situation. The choice of the County Council has been approved by the Secretary of State. The Council chose Lochinver, where there is more room and evidence of more local fishing.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject on the Adjournment and for the manner in which he raised it. I have not dealt with all the points he raised, but I assure him that I will look into the many points he made in his powerful speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.